ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Aerospace Industry

Mark Tami: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister on future investment in the aerospace industry in Wales.

David Jones: The aerospace industrial strategy published in March sets out a vision for the sector, including a joint industry and Government investment of £2 billion across the next seven years. I am pleased that the Welsh Government have endorsed that strategy.

Mark Tami: Aerospace and Airbus are great success stories in Wales, so why do the Secretary of State and his Government believe that now is the time to create uncertainty on the question of Europe, which could threaten future investment in the sector? Does he not want quality jobs in Wales?

David Jones: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that Airbus is an important and innovative employer. I have visited it twice recently, including when the contract for the AirAsia order was signed. However, Europe is an important issue. The Prime Minister considers it right that we should debate it properly, and that, at the end of that debate, we should have a vote. After the dust has settled, the fact will remain that, of all the mainstream parties, only the Conservative party wants to give the people of this country a vote on Europe.

Alun Cairns: St Athan enterprise zone in my constituency is focused on aerospace, and offers fantastic facilities, including hangars, runways and skills. What action is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that UK Trade & Investment is playing its full part to work with the community, those employed in St Athan and the Welsh Government to develop its status?

David Jones: My hon. Friend is entirely right that St Athan offers an enormously important resource in south Wales. The Aerospace Technology Institute will lead collaborative
	research and development projects across the UK, which will involve universities and industry. I suggest that that is a tremendous opportunity for St Athan.

Owen Smith: Airbus is a quintessentially European company. It employs 6,000 people in Wales and 10,000 in the UK, and 100,000 further jobs support it. Does the Secretary of State believe that those jobs will be more or less secure if Wales is not part of Europe?

David Jones: The hon. Gentleman is wrong because Airbus employs 6,600 people in Wales, but he is right that it is an extremely important employer. Nevertheless, the people of this country deserve to have their voice on Europe. The Prime Minister will carry out important negotiations in the next few years. At the end of that period, the issue of Europe will be put to the British people. It is right that it should be. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party want to deny the people of Wales and the UK their voice on that important issue.

Owen Smith: Leaving the pedantry aside, we had no answer from the Secretary of State on whether he believes that those 6,600 jobs in Wales will be more or less secure if Wales is not part of the EU. For the record, could he clarify his position on whether the jobs will be more secure if Wales is in or out of the EU? What is our Secretary of State’s opinion?

David Jones: I am entirely happy to clarify the point. Membership of the EU will be subject to negotiation. To repeat, at the end of that negotiation, we will see whether the conditions are right for this country to remain in the EU. The interests of companies such as Airbus will, of course, be taken fully into account.

Housing Benefit

David Hanson: What assessment he has made of the effects of changes to housing benefit rules in Wales.

Stephen Crabb: Information on the expected impact in Wales and Great Britain of the changes to housing benefit is provided in the impact assessments prepared by the Department for Work and Pensions.

David Hanson: When the Minister gave support to that policy, what assessment did he make of the number of one-bedroom properties available in Wales for the 40,000 people hit by it? Does he agree with the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, his noble Friend Lord Freud, who suggested that those who are concerned should sleep on sofas?

Stephen Crabb: I followed closely yesterday the questioning of the Under-Secretary of State who has responsibility for welfare reform. His comments about sleeping on sofa beds were made in the context of families where the parents have split—he discussed whether there is a duty on the state to provide benefits sufficient for each separated parent to have family-sized accommodation for children during the same week. If the position of the Labour party is that they should
	have such provision, it should be stated clearly from the Opposition Front Bench, but picking up all the costs of relationship breakdown in that way would be an enormous burden on the taxpayer.

David Davies: Is it not the case that, despite the jeering and catcalls from Opposition Members, they will make no commitment to reverse those reforms, which have been introduced because of the financial mess the country is in? They know that better than most since they were the ones who caused it.

Stephen Crabb: As ever, my hon. Friend is correct. The Opposition’s position is characterised by two things: opportunism and hypocrisy. They know they will not reverse the changes if they ever form a Government again.

Elfyn Llwyd: Today, 10 brave families will be applying to the High Court to declare the immoral bedroom tax unlawful. They are parents of disabled children and, in many instances, are disabled themselves. Will the Minister update the House on what steps his Government are taking to exempt those families from this immoral, unjust and unworkable tax that, according to an all-party report in March, will not save a penny?

Stephen Crabb: I am not going to comment on the specifics of the legal case, but the right hon. Gentleman rightly asks what we are doing to protect the most vulnerable people—those with severe disabilities in housing with adaptations. [Hon. Members: “Nothing.”] Opposition Members are heckling from a sedentary position, but contrary to what they are saying, we have set aside an extra £25 million for people with severe disabilities living in adapted accommodation and who need additional support at this time.

Elfyn Llwyd: I hear what the Minister says, but I would like him to respond to recent research conducted by BBC Wales, which revealed that there are approximately 28,000 individuals in Wales living in social housing that is considered to be under-occupied, with 400 one-bedroom homes available for them to move to. What will happen about that disconnect, or does he not care?

Stephen Crabb: There is a mixture of housing stock throughout Wales. Decisions will be taken on a localised basis, which is why we have more than doubled the amount of discretionary housing payment to more than £6 million to help meet the issue that the right hon. Gentleman raises.

Guto Bebb: My hon. Friend has just mentioned the £6 million increase in discretionary housing payments in Wales. In Conwy in my constituency, the increase to £300,000 doubles the amount available to the local authority. Is it not the case that many of the individual cases mentioned by Opposition parties will be dealt with at a local level as a result of this fantastic increase?

Stephen Crabb: We have more than doubled the amount available to local authorities for discretionary housing payment. In the local authorities of Wrexham and Caerphilly, it has been increased by more than 300%.
	We are determined to protect the most vulnerable people at a time when we have to restore budget discipline to housing benefit expenditure.

Nia Griffith: Official housing allowance figures indicate that even if only a third of bedroom tax victims in Wales manage to move to smaller private accommodation, that will mean at least a £17 million increase in the annual housing benefit bill going straight into the pockets of landlords. How many jobs does the Minister reckon could be created with that £17 million?

Stephen Crabb: I am not sure that the hon. Lady will want to talk about jobs, because today’s figures show yet again that unemployment in Wales is falling, economic inactivity is falling, and employment is up. I do not really follow the logic of her question, but she should welcome today’s good news

Measles Outbreak

Kevin Brennan: What discussions he has had with Ministers in the Welsh Government on the measles outbreak in south Wales.

Stephen Crabb: My noble Friend Baroness Randerson, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales, will be meeting the Welsh Government Minister for Health to discuss the matter further, and we remain in very close contact with Welsh Government officials. While this is a devolved matter, I share the concerns of the local community and I encourage those not yet vaccinated to do so.

Kevin Brennan: Will the Minister join me in praising the response of NHS Wales to the measles outbreak? In addition, will he urge those who have not taken up the MMR vaccine to do so immediately, particularly given the reports from Public Health Wales this week about outbreaks further east in Wales? Will he urge them to do that, so we can stop the spread of this dangerous disease?

Stephen Crabb: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. It was very worrying to see the figures announced yesterday that more than 4,000 children in the Swansea area still have not been vaccinated. In Gwent, more than 10,000 children have not yet been vaccinated, and we have particular concerns about a measles outbreak in Gwent. It is absolutely right that Welsh Government public health officials are doing everything they can by making clinics available at the weekend and so on. The onus is now on parents to go out and get their children vaccinated.

James Gray: Does the Minister agree that it is essential roundly to condemn the totally incorrect research done by Andrew Wakefield many years ago linking MMR with autism? It simply was not true, and now is the time to say he got it wrong and that everyone must have the MMR injection.

Stephen Crabb: My hon. Friend is also right. Dr Andrew Wakefield’s research has been discredited not just in this country, but by medical and scientific opinion throughout
	the world. There is no reason for parents to feel alarmed about the MMR vaccine, and there is plenty of dispassionate advice for them if they have concerns or questions. They should crack on now and get their children vaccinated.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the Minister commend the work of local authorities such as Bridgend working hand in hand with the Abertawe Bro Morgannwg university health board and running drop-in clinics in every school in the constituency? Does he agree with me, a father of three teenage boys, that the very best protection against this disease is for everyone not to be afraid and to turn up to these clinics and get all their children vaccinated against this terrible disease?

Stephen Crabb: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right as well. The response from public officials in Wales at all levels—Welsh Government, local authorities and within Public Health Wales—has been exemplary. They have done everything right so far, but we need to get the message out to the communities affected that parents with children not yet vaccinated urgently need to get them vaccinated.

Government's Fiscal Policies

Philip Hollobone: What discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on the effects on the economy in Wales of the Government’s fiscal policies.

David Jones: I have regular discussions with the Welsh Government on economic issues. Action taken by the Government to deal with the deficit has helped keep interest rates at near record lows, helping families and businesses across Wales.

Philip Hollobone: How many people in Wales have seen their personal tax-free income tax allowances increase since May 2010, and how many small businesses in Wales are set to benefit from the new £2,000 national insurance employment allowance being introduced next April?

David Jones: The increase in the personal allowance announced by the Government will benefit 1.1 million taxpayers and remove 130 individuals from paying income tax altogether. More than 35,000 businesses in Wales will benefit from the national insurance employment allowance, with 20,000 of them being taken out of national insurance altogether.

Albert Owen: I welcome the drop in unemployment in Wales—that is in sharp contrast to unemployment in England—and credit must go to the jobs growth fund introduced by the Welsh Government. What practical steps are the Secretary of State and the Government taking to work with the Welsh Government to eradicate long-term unemployment, which is rising in north Wales and in his and my constituencies?

David Jones: The hon. Gentleman should also commend Welsh businesses, which are increasing the number of their employees, but certainly I am happy to commend initiatives by the Welsh Government. His point highlights
	the importance of the UK and Welsh Governments working closely together. That is something that we are prepared to do, and I expect to see reciprocation from the Welsh Government.

Jonathan Edwards: The UK Government-sponsored Silk commission recommended empowering the Welsh Government and Welsh local authorities with fiscal responsibility to incentivise economic development. Why were these recommendations not included in the Finance Bill or the Queen’s Speech in a Government of Wales Bill?

David Jones: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Silk proposals are still under consideration by the UK Government. We have always made it absolutely clear that we will announce our response to Silk this spring, so we will issue that response in the next few weeks.

Enterprise Zones

Stephen Mosley: What assessment he has made of the potential for co- operation between enterprise zones in England and Wales.

David Jones: I see great potential in a joined-up approach to enterprise zones in England and Wales. Co-operation will enhance the offer that each of the zones presents, and I will continue to engage with the Welsh Government to explore these opportunities.

Stephen Mosley: Today’s unemployment figures show that the Chester and north-east Wales economic sub-region is becoming a jobs powerhouse in the local area. By working together, the three enterprise zones in the area—Deeside, Wirral and Daresbury—can pack a stronger punch than if they act individually. Will the Secretary of State ensure that local authorities work together to pack that bigger punch?

David Jones: I visited the Deeside industrial park forum last Friday, and that was very much the message I got from employers in that enterprise zone. There is far more to be gained from the three enterprise zones working closely together. One of the catalysts for expansion of those zones would be electrification of the Wrexham to Bidston railway line, which is a matter that my office is working on.

Ian Lucas: I am delighted to hear that the Wrexham to Bidston line project is under consideration by the Secretary of State’s office. Will he convene a meeting of MPs and Assembly Members from north-east Wales, and of MPs from Cheshire, to discuss the project and what steps can be taken, using enterprise zones, to take it forward?

David Jones: I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman welcome that initiative. His proposal is certainly worthy of consideration. I am having a number of meetings in the immediate future with representatives of other enterprise zones, and in due course I will write to him and perhaps invite him to such a meeting.

Alison McGovern: It is indeed heartening to hear the Secretary of State speak supportively of the Wrexham to Bidston line upgrade project, which we want to see happen. Does he welcome Network Rail’s publication of its Long Term Planning Process, which sees connections between Wrexham and Liverpool being much improved, and can MPs from Merseyside also be invited to any such meeting he might convene?

David Jones: I am pleased to hear the hon. Lady’s comments. I think she would agree that electrification of the railway line between Liverpool and Wrexham would add greatly to the economies of north-east Wales, and Wirral and the north-west of England. It is important that we work with Merseyrail, and I hope to meet Merseyrail in the very near future. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her support.

National Transport Infrastructure (M4)

Jonathan Evans: What discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues and others on the contribution of the M4 to the UK’s national transport infrastructure.

David Jones: I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues, Welsh Ministers and others on the strategic importance of the M4 to the UK road network.

Jonathan Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is excellent news that the talks between the Welsh Assembly Government and the UK Government have resumed after 10 years of inactivity on this subject? Is he aware of the recent remarks of the director general of the CBI, who indicated that progress on this issue, coupled with electrification of the line through to Swansea, would represent the biggest investment in the Welsh economy for a generation?

David Jones: I certainly agree with that. Furthermore, I would point out that the M4 is an extremely important UK national asset and it is a great pity that it was not upgraded long ago. Recently, I have had discussions with Welsh Assembly Ministers on this issue, and I hope that we will be able to make further progress.

Geraint Davies: Will the Secretary of State press the Treasury to invest now in the M4 above Newport and Port Talbot, going westwards, and to reduce the Severn bridge tolls, to give a real stimulus to the south Wales economy?

David Jones: I am heavily engaged with the Treasury on that very issue. However, I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the road network in Wales is a devolved competence, and it is a great shame that the Welsh Government have not attended to this problem sooner, before the situation declined to the extent that it has. We are certainly engaged with the Treasury, and I hope that we will be able to make announcements in the future.

David Morris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the M4 in south Wales is in desperate need of improvement, to relieve congestion that is hampering economic development there?

David Jones: Yes, the congestion on the M4 is causing significant difficulty to Welsh commerce and, of course, to Welsh motorists. I repeat that it is a great pity that the Welsh Government did not carry out their statutory function by upgrading that road long ago. This is a matter on which I am engaged with the Welsh Government, and I hope we will be able to make further announcements in due course.

Wayne David: Will the Government introduce road tolls on the new M4 relief road?

David Jones: I must point out that the Assembly Government already have the competence to introduce road tolls, under the Transport (Wales) Act 2006. That is, of course, a matter for the Assembly Government.

Overseas Students

Roger Williams: What discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues and others on increasing the accessibility of educational institutions in Wales to students from overseas.

Mark Williams: What discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues and others on increasing the accessibility of educational institutions in Wales to students from overseas.

Stephen Crabb: A thriving higher education sector is vital to our economy and I recognise the significant contribution that overseas students make to the sector. The reforms we have introduced have tackled abuse of the student migration system while protecting universities, to ensure that they can continue to attract the best and the brightest.

Roger Williams: I am sure that the Minister will want to join me in congratulating Swansea university, whose pro-vice chancellor I met last night, on the start of its new, second campus, which will house 5,000 students. Will my hon. Friend make every effort to publicise the fact that Welsh universities are open for business and open to applications from overseas students?

Stephen Crabb: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Welsh higher education institutions attract a greater proportion of overseas students than similar institutions in England, Northern Ireland or Scotland; they are at the forefront of attracting overseas students. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited the new campus at Swansea university recently; it illustrates the strong offer that the university now has.

Mark Williams: Notwithstanding the Government’s necessary direction of travel on immigration policy as set out in the Queen’s Speech, may I ask my hon. Friend to endorse the work of Aberystwyth university, which plans to treble the number of its overseas students by 2017? That will be essential for the local economy, and for building links with emerging economies throughout the world.

Stephen Crabb: Aberystwyth is another university with an extremely strong track record of attracting overseas students. In fact, in an international survey of
	students, it was voted the best overseas university for student satisfaction and the best place to live. It is front and centre of our efforts to attract more overseas students.

Nick Smith: What discussions has the Minister had with the Home Office about the impact on higher education institutions in Wales of 42,000 fewer students coming to the UK?

Stephen Crabb: There is a constant close dialogue between us, the Home Office and the Minister for Universities and Science about how we can attract more overseas students to the UK. I do not know what figures the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) has seen, but if he looks at the figures for overseas students coming to Wales, he will see that there has been a 73% increase in the past five years, and those numbers are continuing to go up. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. There is a large number of extremely noisy private conversations taking place, including among those on the Opposition Benches, who I am sure will now wish to hear Jessica Morden.

Disabled People (Welfare Policies)

Jessica Morden: What assessment he has made of the effects of the Government’s welfare policies on disabled people in Wales.

Stephen Crabb: The introduction of the personal independence payment will ensure that we provide more targeted support to those who need it most. Under our reforms, a greater proportion of disabled recipients will get the higher levels of support compared with disability living allowance.

Jessica Morden: In Wales, 25,000 disabled people will be hit by the bedroom tax, more than 40,000 are set to lose their disability living allowance and more than 50,000 will see their benefits reduced. Does the Minister agree with Disability Wales that a cumulative impact assessment of the Government’s welfare changes is urgently needed?

Stephen Crabb: I suggest that the hon. Lady looks at the cumulative impact of the range of welfare reforms that we are bringing in. Under universal credit, 200,000 households in Wales will see their entitlement go up by about £140 a month, and a large proportion of the people currently receiving disability living allowance in Wales will also see their entitlement go up. She should not necessarily believe the scaremongering from Opposition Members.

National Assembly for Wales

Michael Fabricant: If he will consider proposing an alternative name for the National Assembly for Wales as part of the Government’s response to the Commission on Devolution in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

David Jones: The Government have no plans to change the name of the National Assembly for Wales.

Michael Fabricant: In the light of the Silk review, which is likely to give fundraising powers to the National Assembly, does the Secretary of State not agree with me—and, more importantly, with the leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew R. T. Davies—that now is the time to consider calling it the Welsh Parliament?

David Jones: Well, have I got news for my hon. Friend! The Silk commission has not yet completed its work; it will report in the spring of next year. The title “National Assembly” is used by the primary legislatures of countries such as France and South Africa, and also by the regional legislature of Quebec. The issue is what the legislature does, rather than what it is called.

Corporation Tax

Karen Lumley: What assessment he has made of the potential effects in Wales of the reduction in the rate of corporation tax to 20%.

David Jones: In total, the main rate of tax is set to fall by 8 percentage points under this Government. The United Kingdom will have the lowest rate in the G20, lower than most of our main competitors.

Karen Lumley: As well as reducing corporation tax, what else can the Government do to help small businesses in Wales?

David Jones: The reduction in corporation tax will be of immense benefit to Welsh small businesses. The Budget did, of course, announce that the national insurance employment allowance will benefit 35,000 businesses in Wales, with 20,000 of them taken out of paying national insurance contributions altogether.

Living Standards

Susan Elan Jones: What assessment he has made of the effects of the Government’s policies on the living standards of people in Wales.

David Jones: This Government are committed to supporting those on low and middle incomes and to assisting growth by putting more money in the pockets of ordinary taxpayers. For example, the cumulative effect of this Government’s announced increases to the income tax personal allowance will result in a cash gain of £705 per annum for a typical basic rate taxpayer.

Susan Elan Jones: Some 400,000 individuals across Wales will face real-terms cuts in tax credits and benefits at a time when 13,000 millionaires across the UK will get a tax cut. Does the Secretary of State think this is right—yes or no?

David Jones: What I would say is that those on higher earnings will be paying more tax under this Government than they did during any year of the last Labour Government. We are supporting families with lower taxation and we are reducing the tax burden progressively; it would appear that the hon. Lady’s party has no interest at all in supporting the interests of hard-working families.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Tristram Hunt: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 May.

Nicholas Clegg: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The Deputy Prime Minister must be heard—from the start of the session to the end of the session.

Nicholas Clegg: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is visiting the United States for meetings with President Obama, making the case for a transatlantic trade agreement between the United States and the European Union and chairing the high-level panel on development in New York today. This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Tristram Hunt: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his answer. If Conservative Members of Parliament do not have to support the Government on Europe, why do Liberal Democrat MPs have to support the Government on tripling tuition fees, top-down reorganisation of the NHS, the bedroom tax and all the other wretched policies of this Government?

Nicholas Clegg: Liberal Democrats, and indeed Conservatives, are working together to clear up the mess left by the hon. Gentleman’s party. It is this Government who are delivering more apprenticeships than ever before, delivering a cap on social care costs, delivering a decent state pension for everybody and clearing up the mess in the banking system left by that man there—the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls)—and so many other people on the Labour Benches.

Peter Bone: Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the only party in this House offering an in/out referendum is the Conservative party?

Nicholas Clegg: I know the hon. Gentleman hates to be reminded of things that he and I have actually done together when we have been on the same
	side of the argument, but we spent 100 days in the early part of this Parliament passing legislation, opposed by the Labour party, that for the first time ever gives a guarantee in law about when a referendum on Europe will take place—when the rules next change or new things are asked of the United Kingdom within the European Union. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Conservative party are perfectly free for their own reasons to move the goalposts, but this legislation is in place and the people of Britain have a guarantee about when a referendum will take place, and that is what I suggest we should all go out and promote.
	[Official Report, 16 May 2013, Vol. 563, c. 7-8MC.]

Harriet Harman: I am sure that everyone is thrilled to see the Deputy Prime Minister and, of course, myself at the Dispatch Box today. This is meant to be Prime Minister’s questions, however, yet once again the Prime Minister is not here. Why is it that out of the last eight Wednesdays, the Prime Minister has answered questions in this House only once?

Nicholas Clegg: I think that the Prime Minister is unusually assiduous in coming to the House to make statements. I think that the leader who should be relieved that there is no Prime Minister’s Question Time today is the leader of the right hon. and learned Lady’s party. I am still reeling with dismay over the fact that recently, on Radio 4, he denied 10 times that borrowing would increase under Labour’s plans. Who said that there is not enough comedy on Radio 4?

Harriet Harman: We have all seen what the Prime Minister has been doing in America. He has been on a London bus in New York—something, incidentally, that we do not see him doing a great deal when he is here. He has also been busy explaining to President Obama the benefits of Britain’s membership of the European Union. Why is he able to do that in the White House, but not in this House?

Nicholas Clegg: To be fair to the Prime Minister—notwithstanding our other differences on this subject—I think that he has always made it clear that he believes in continued membership of the European Union, if it is a reformed European Union.
	There is a fundamental debate that we need to have in this country about whether we are an open or a closed nation, and about whether or not we stand tall in our European neighbourhood. That debate will continue, and the Prime Minister will continue to make his views known.

Harriet Harman: It is indeed an important debate, and we have an important vote on an amendment to the Queen’s Speech tonight, but the Prime Minister is out of the country. Can the Deputy Prime Minister help the House? If the Prime Minister were here today, would he be voting for the Government or against the Government, or would he be showing true leadership and abstaining?

Nicholas Clegg: The right hon. and learned Lady has used three questions to point out that the Prime Minister is not here. That is a striking observation—a penetrating insight into the affairs of state today.
	Just two years ago, the right hon. and learned Lady’s party rejected an opportunity to vote on legislation that Government Members pushed through, giving the British people, for the first time, a copper-bottomed legal guarantee in relation to when a referendum would take place. Our position is perfectly clear; hers is not.

Harriet Harman: This is an extraordinary situation. The Deputy Prime Minister has not told the House how the Prime Minister would have been voting if he were here. Is it that he does not know, is it because he does not want to tell the House, or is it because he thinks that the Prime Minister would probably have changed his mind by the time we would have been told?
	While the Prime Minister is bogged down in confusion about Europe, people are suffering. Today’s figures show that unemployment is up. More people are out of work, and the number of people who have been out of work for more than two years is at its highest since 1997. So what is today’s excuse?

Nicholas Clegg: The right hon. and learned Lady has commented on today’s figures. Of course when anyone is without work it is an individual tragedy, and we must always work to bring unemployment down, but I think that she is giving the House a somewhat partial snapshot. Full-time unemployment is actually up by 10,000 this quarter, more people are employed in the private sector than ever before, employment has risen by 866,000 since the election, and the number of women employed is the highest that it has ever been. Is that not something that the right hon. and learned Lady should celebrate rather than denigrate?

Harriet Harman: We see complete complacency while things are getting worse. The fact is that even those who are in work are worse off. Wages are falling behind prices, and figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show that as a result of all the Deputy Prime Minister’s changes, families on lower and middle incomes are worse off. Will he own up to that? Will he admit it?

Nicholas Clegg: Complacency? This from a party that crashed the British economy, went on a prawn cocktail charm offensive—sucking up to the banks—which led to the disaster in the banking system in the first place, and operated a tax system under which a cleaner would pay more tax on his or her wages than a hedge fund manager would on his or her shares?
	Under this Government, the richest are paying more in taxes every year than they did under Labour. Under this Government, 24 million basic rate taxpayers will be £700 better off next year than they were under Labour. Under this Government, as of next April, nearly 3 million people on low pay will be taken out of income tax altogether. How about that for a record to be proud of?

Harriet Harman: So the right hon. Gentleman votes for a tax cut for millionaires and then comes to the House and says the rich will be paying more. Three years into this coalition Government everyone knows that the country faces big problems, and what do we have? We have a Prime Minister who is not just indecisive, not just weak, but fast becoming a laughing stock.

Nicholas Clegg: The right hon. and learned Lady mentions—as Labour party Members often do—the upper rate of income tax. Under us, it is 45p.

Bob Russell: It was 40p under Labour.

Nicholas Clegg: Hang on; my hon. Friend is a great enthusiast. What was the rate under Labour? What was it for 13 years? Was it 50p? No. Was it 45p? No. The Labour rate was 40p, which is 5p lower. They let the richest in this country off the hook; we didn’t.

Roger Gale: Given the Liberal Democrats’ commitment to a European Union referendum, will my right hon. Friend see fit to help facilitate Government time for a private Member’s Bill on the subject, should that become available?

Nicholas Clegg: As my hon. Friend knows, my party has always believed there should be a referendum on Europe when the rules change and when new things are being asked of the United Kingdom within the European Union. That is what we had in our last manifesto, and that is what we have now acted on in government by passing legislation, together in the coalition, just two years ago giving an absolute legal guarantee in legislation for the first time ever that when the rules change, there will be a referendum. By the way, I think it is a question of when, not if, because the rules are bound to change. I would just simply suggest that we should stick to what we have done as a Government in giving that guarantee to the British people, rather than constantly shift the goalposts.

Robert Flello: Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister shares my dismay at allegations of price fixing in the oil market. If so, will he explain why he has consistently opposed Opposition amendments for proper regulation of oil and commodity prices by the Financial Conduct Authority? Will he now accept that he was wrong, accept the amendments from this side of the House, and get petrol and diesel prices at the pump reduced?

Nicholas Clegg: That is yet another example of astonishing amnesia. What happened for 13 years? Did the hon. Gentleman or any Labour Front-Bench Members do anything? The investigation into alleged price rigging—and, by the way, it is very important that the oil companies concerned should of course co-operate with a European Union institution that is doing very good work on behalf of British consumers—stretches right back to the years when Labour was in power. What on earth did it do? Once again, it was asleep at the wheel.

Margot James: I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister shares the widespread revulsion at the perpetrators of the crimes against the young and vulnerable girls in Oxford. Does he agree that we now look to the courts to impose the severest possible penalties against these evil men, so that those poor girls can get the justice they were denied by the police and the local authority?

Nicholas Clegg: I am sure my hon. Friend speaks on behalf of everybody in this House, not only about the sense of revulsion at these truly evil acts, but about the fact that we should pay tribute to the courage of these young women. The innocence of their childhoods was so horridly destroyed by this evil gang, and we must all pay tribute to the courage it must have taken for them to come forward and give evidence. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that lessons should be learned particularly about how the police forces and social services work together, and that these people should be handed down the severest possible sentences in response to this reprehensible crime.

Toby Perkins: The Deputy Prime Minister talks about the individual tragedy of unemployment, but a year ago this Government made thousands of Remploy disabled workers unemployed, and 69% of them are still unemployed. They wanted to work, but it is costing the Government more to keep them on the dole. Does that not show that the Government are not just heartless, but utterly incompetent?

Nicholas Clegg: As I hope the hon. Gentleman knows, the approach we have taken to Remploy was in response to independent recommendations made by senior figures active in the area of disability and the rights of those with disabilities. The recommendation that came through was very clear: that it is simply not right to say to people with disabilities that somehow they should be hidden away and put in a separate silo, and we should do what we can to give them support to be part of the mainstream labour market along with everybody else. That is why we have not in any way cut the support for those workers in Remploy factories as they make the transition from those factories into the world of mainstream work.

Andrew Turner: Does not the Deputy Prime Minister recall that at the election he promised to go for an in/out referendum? That has not taken place yet. Does he understand that residents of the Isle of Wight, and many from elsewhere, would feel betrayed if the Liberal Democrats did not now support an amendment regretting that an referendum is not included in the Gracious Speech?

Nicholas Clegg: As my hon. Friend knows, our commitment was for a referendum when there is a fundamental change in the relationship—[Interruption.] Read our manifesto—I have. I helped to write it, and I can guarantee that that is what it says, and we have acted on that. I have an old-fashioned view—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not think the Deputy Prime Minister particularly minds being shouted at, but I do not want him to be shouted at excessively. The House should hear his answer, and certainly the people of the Isle of Wight should hear his answer.

Nicholas Clegg: That is very kind of you, Mr Speaker, thank you.
	I have an old-fashioned view that when a Government put forward a Queen’s Speech that has a lot of good things in it—a cap on social care costs, a decent single-tier pension for everybody and a cut in national insurance
	contributions for employers to create jobs—we on this side of the House should go out and promote it and not spend days bemoaning what is not in it.

William McCrea: The police in Northern Ireland have stated that if the National Crime Agency is unable to operate fully in Northern Ireland it will have a detrimental impact on their ability to keep the people of Northern Ireland safe and to combat serious and organised crime. Surely no political party in Northern Ireland has a right to gamble with the safety of the people of Northern Ireland, so what do the Government propose to do to ensure that no one is able to hold the people of Northern Ireland to ransom and make Northern Ireland an easy target for international crime?

Nicholas Clegg: I am sure everyone shares my instinct that, as with all sensitive issues in Northern Ireland, the more we can talk across parties and across traditional divides and hostilities, the more we promote the prosperity and security of the people of Northern Ireland and of the people of the United Kingdom as a whole.

Alan Reid: This Government have helped motorists in my constituency by cutting fuel duty by 13p on the mainland and 18p on the island, compared with Labour’s disastrous plans. Now that the European authorities are investigating the oil companies, will the Government ensure that oil companies here obey the rules and end any price fixing that might be going on? It is important that the Government’s good policy on fuel duty means that the benefit ends up in the pockets of the motorists, not the oil companies.

Nicholas Clegg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House that the price of fuel on the forecourt would be 13p higher under the plans embarked on by the Labour party—[Interruption.] Labour Members hate to hear this and to be reminded of it, but I am afraid it is true—the price would be 13p higher, which would be a crippling additional cost of living for millions of people in this country. I agree with him that the large oil companies now under investigation for these allegations should, of course, fully co-operate with the European Commission.

Jim McGovern: May I put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister that might go against the grain for me? I have been vociferous in my support for the Remploy organisation. Unfortunately, the Remploy factory in my constituency is earmarked for closure, and members of the work force received letters in March advising them to seek alternative employment. Some of them have done so successfully, but on Monday they were given an interview and told that they would not be allowed to leave their employment with Remploy and, if they insisted on doing so, they would not receive the severance package offered to every other member of the work force. Will the Deputy Prime Minister look into this?

Nicholas Clegg: Of course—I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will look into the specific issues that
	the hon. Gentleman raises. As I said in response to the earlier question, the thinking behind this is of course to ensure that those who work in Remploy factories find gainful employment in mainstream work. That is the recommendation that came not from the Government but from independent observers; they said this is the best way to ensure that we do not ghettoise those with disabilities in the labour market, and that is what we will continue to work towards.

Rory Stewart: Millions of people are struggling with their electricity bills and our electricity infrastructure is creaking. We have a solution in Wigton, where we are developing a smart grid that will make our electricity more reliable and more affordable. Will the Deputy Prime Minister commit to visiting Wigton and make the bold investment to roll a true smart grid out across the country?

Nicholas Clegg: I would like to convey my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman and to all those in Wigton who have launched this smart energy pilot project. I am delighted to hear that it has elicited so much enthusiasm from the local community. It is, as he says, the first step towards creating a smart energy community. I know that officials from the Department of Energy and Climate Change have met the pilot’s network provider to discuss its benefits, and if it works it is exactly the kind of thing that we should seek to extend to other parts of the country.

Brian H Donohoe: Replying to earlier questions, the Deputy Prime Minister blamed everybody but himself and his Government for the fixing of fuel prices. I am old enough to remember the Prices Commission, which ensured that the price of petrol and other commodities was the same across the whole land. Asda is able to do that, but the oil companies are price fixing in my constituency and elsewhere. Also, this Government have introduced an increase in the VAT on fuel. What is he going to do about all that?

Nicholas Clegg: As I said, we have scrapped the fuel price hikes that were planned and decided upon by the previous Government, but of course allegations of price manipulation are incredibly serious. I am pleased that the European Commission is taking the matter so seriously and it is very important for us and for our constituents, for whom petrol, diesel and fuel prices are an incredibly important part of the weekly and monthly household budget, that those companies now engage seriously in looking at the allegations put to them by the European Commission.

Edward Leigh: I have here a leaflet issued by the Liberal Democrats at the time of the passage of the Lisbon treaty. On the front page is a man posing as one Nick Clegg, who says:
	“It’s time for a real referendum on Europe”—
	an in/out referendum, not a referendum on a treaty change. Was that man an impostor or just a hypocrite?

Nicholas Clegg: That man, whom I believe to be me, was stating something then that my party has restated ever since: that we should have a referendum on Europe when the rules change. We said that—
	[Interruption.]
	We said that at the time—
	[Interruption] 
	We said that at the time of the Lisbon treaty and we said it in our manifesto. We even legislated on it, and we will say it again.
	[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Gray, I was thinking of calling you to ask a question, but if you continue to misbehave, I might not.

Ian Murray: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with me, the late Baroness Thatcher, senior Government members on the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, the Liberal Democrat manifesto, the Minister in charge of the Royal Mail and his own Government, and does he still agree with himself, that the privatisation of the Royal Mail is a step too far?

Nicholas Clegg: We should welcome the innovative way in which we are seeking to give workers in Royal Mail a stake in the company. The hon. Gentleman’s party used to believed in worker ownership, but as on so many other issues it is still a blank sheet of paper when it comes to public policy of any significance. The Government are moving forward; the Opposition are standing still.

Simon Hughes: I have to tell my friend that I cannot support the decision of the Prime Minister to go to the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference in Sri Lanka because of the human rights record of the Sri Lankan Government. What can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us about how we can respond to that terrible regime’s record? What can we do to make sure that in future the Commonwealth does not just say it believes in human rights, but does something about it?

Nicholas Clegg: We are all aware that the decision that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will attend the upcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Sri Lanka is controversial, especially in the light of the despicable human rights violations during the recent civil war. But I assure my right hon. Friend that the Government condemn those violations, the way in which political trials, regular assaults on legal professionals and suppression of press freedom continue, and the fact that too many recommendations of the lessons learnt and reconciliation commission have not been implemented. If such violations continue, and if the Sri Lankan Government continue to ignore their international commitments in the lead up to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, of course there will be consequences.

Helen Jones: When the Deputy Prime Minister spoke about youth unemployment in 2011, he said that
	“the coalition won’t sit on our hands and let a generation fall behind.”
	Now that we know that long-term youth unemployment has trebled under this Government, why is he sitting on his hands and refusing to match Labour’s jobs guarantee? Is it because he has no influence in government or because he does not care?

Nicholas Clegg: On the day in which youth unemployment declined, in view of the fact that youth unemployment went up remorselessly year after year after year in the latter half of the Labour Administration, and given that this Government are introducing a £1 billion Youth Contract, which gives everyone between the ages of 18 and 24 who has been out of work for a certain period the opportunity to take up an apprenticeship, subsidised work or a place on work experience, it is pretty rich for the hon. Lady to lecture us about the problems of youth unemployment.

Nigel Adams: Has the Deputy Prime Minister had time to reflect on this week’s analysis of Yorkshire’s top 150 companies by the accountancy firm BDO, which shows that in the last year businesses in Yorkshire have seen an increase in revenues of £5 billion, that investment is up 20%, that exports to emerging markets are up 50%, and that 10,000 new jobs have been created?

Nicholas Clegg: As an MP for a great Yorkshire city, I of course want to join my hon. Friend in celebrating the great achievements of businesses in Yorkshire, particularly the rebirth of so many great manufacturing companies. I am immensely proud that this Government have been backing manufacturing, after years of neglect under Labour.

Stephen Hepburn: The Government’s much trumpeted Mesothelioma Bill was introduced last week, but only those diagnosed after 25 July 2012 will be compensated. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that it is wrong and unfair that the leeches in the insurance industry who are bankrolling the Tory party are getting away with millions and millions, when working class people who have been negligently poisoned by their employers are getting away with nothing?

Nicholas Clegg: What does the hon. Gentleman think happened for 13 years under Labour? I am hugely sympathetic, as I am sure everybody is, to the plight of people who are unable to trace a liable employer or insurer against whom they can bring a claim. We announced our intention to bring forward legislation to introduce the scheme on 25 July 2012, and it is from that date that people have a reasonable expectation that if they are diagnosed with asbestos-related cancer and they meet the eligibility criteria they will receive a payment. But because we have also decided to pay dependants of people who have died from that cancer, the scheme will not be able to pay dependants of every person who has died, and that is why we have taken the approach we have.

James Gray: The Deputy Prime Minister is a great democrat as well as a Liberal, and I salute him for that. Will he therefore stand by the precise wording in this very fetching Liberal Democrat leaflet that I happened to find on my desk this morning, which says:
	“Only a real referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU will let the people decide our country’s future.”
	Will he now stand by that solemn pledge to the people of Britain and join us in the Lobby tonight?

Nicholas Clegg: I fully stand behind the position that I took then and my party has taken ever since, that when there is a change in the rules and new things are asked of the United Kingdom within the European Union, there should and there will be a referendum. Not only that, we have done better since we issued that leaflet in 2008: we legislated to guarantee that to the British people for the first time in primary legislation just two years ago. We spent 100 days debating that in this House at the time. If my hon. Friend wants to reinvent it all over again and keep picking away at the issue, what will he give up from a fairly crowded Queen’s Speech? Will he tell his constituents that we will not put a cap on social care costs; we will not deliver a single tier pension; we will not pass legislation to have a national insurance contribution cut for employers? I think that we should stick to the priorities of the British people, which are growth and jobs.[Official Report, 16 May 2013, Vol. 563, c. 8MC.]

Naomi Long: Three of my young constituents, Emma Carson, Emma Magowan and Sophie Ebbinghaus, recently presented me with posters they had made supporting the IF campaign. They asked me to tell the Prime Minister of their concerns for boys and girls growing up without enough food to survive. Unfortunately, he is not here, but what assurances can the Deputy Prime Minister give them that the forthcoming G8 summit in Northern Ireland will deliver real action to ensure that there really is enough food for everyone?

Nicholas Clegg: Like the hon. Lady and many Members on both sides of the House, I am a huge supporter of the IF campaign, and I attended its launch here in Westminster, as did many hon. Members. Of course it is a total scandal that in 2013 nearly 1 billion people globally are hungry or malnourished. I am delighted about the co-operation between all the different campaign groups in the IF campaign and the Government in pushing forward a radical agenda, which has never really been tried before, in the G8, under our presidency, to ensure tax fairness and proper transparency in the way primary resources are exploited in the developing world and the way trade works for the poorest around the planet. That is why we will work hand in hand with the IF campaign during our G8 presidency.

Stephen Lloyd: In 2008 the Independent Reconfiguration Panel made a series of recommendations in response to an attempt by my local NHS trust to downgrade maternity services at Eastbourne district general hospital. The IRP recommendations were, in my view and those of eminent local clinicians, never properly introduced, which has now led to safety issues that, perversely, have enabled the trust to implement the service changes that were originally rejected by the IRP. Will the Deputy Prime Minister look at addressing that anomaly and ensure that hospitals implement IRP recommendations robustly and that that is audited, including at Eastbourne district general hospital?

Mr Speaker: Order. There is probably scope for an Adjournment debate on the back of that, so let us have a brief answer.

Nicholas Clegg: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all his work on behalf of his local community in relation to his local hospital. My understanding is that the changes to maternity services at Hastings hospital are temporary and that, of course, no permanent changes will be made without full public consultation. He makes an important point about the role of the Independent Reconfiguration Panel and I will ask the Secretary of State for Health to discuss the matter furtherwith him.

Siobhain McDonagh: In answer to the question the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) asked on Sri Lanka, the Deputy Prime Minister gave a long list of atrocities committed by the Sri Lankan Government. Why, then, are his Government going to the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit in Sri Lanka, why are they announcing that six months ahead of time, and why do they want to see an alleged war criminal as Chair of the Commonwealth?

Nicholas Clegg: I think that we all accept the controversy and unease about this matter, but by attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Sri Lanka we will be using the opportunity to cast a spotlight on the unacceptable abuses there. As I said earlier, of course there will be consequences if the
	conduct of the Sri Lankan authorities does not change. The Commonwealth matters to us all, and it is based on a number of values. Where I accept the hon. Lady’s implicit criticism is in relation to this point: all Commonwealth Governments should do more to not only talk about those values, but ensure that they are properly monitored and enforced.

Chris Heaton-Harris: The Special Olympics movement showcases the abilities and achievements of learning-disabled athletes around the world while delivering positive inclusion, education and health outcomes. The British Special Olympic games will take place this summer in Bath. Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure me that the Government are doing all they can to spread the legacy from last year’s Olympics across all disability sports, including the Special Olympic games?

Nicholas Clegg: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. As he knows, last summer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister appointed Lord Coe to be his legacy ambassador. A Paralympics legacy advisory group has also been established. I know that Lord Coe’s team is meeting Special Olympics GB shortly to discuss potential links between the London 2012 legacy and the national games to be held in Bath later this summer.

Petrol Prices

Edward Davey: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on petrol prices and the cost of living.
	On 14 May, officials from the European Commission directorate-general for competition carried out unannounced inspections at the premises of several companies active in the crude oil, refined oil products and biofuels sectors, including Statoil, BP and Shell. The Commission has concerns that the companies may have colluded in reporting distorted prices to a price reporting agency to manipulate the published prices for a number of oil and biofuel products. Any such behaviour, if established, may amount to violations of European antitrust rules that prohibit cartels and restrictive business practices and abuses of a dominant market position.
	This Government are deeply concerned by any allegation that prices for consumers could have been artificially or unnecessarily driven up. The UK Government and regulators will provide any assistance necessary to the European investigators, and we expect the companies concerned to fully comply with these investigations. However, these investigations are at an early stage and the Commission has made it clear that investigations do not imply guilt. Until the facts are clear, it would be inappropriate to comment further on this investigation. I should also be clear to the House that these investigations are not directly linked to the allegations of market manipulation in the gas markets, which Ofgem and the Financial Services Authority are continuing to review.
	This Government believe strongly that it is in our mutual interest for motorists and businesses to be confident that they are being treated fairly, and that when wholesale costs come down, these reductions are passed on transparently and without unnecessary delay. That is why we welcomed the Office of Fair Trading’s decision to look into the market for road fuels in late 2012. At that time, the OFT did not receive evidence on the impact on pump prices of potential manipulation of derivatives markets and the accuracy of reported prices of crude and wholesale road fuel that built the case for such an investigation. However, it did set out that it believes such manipulation is possible and encouraged market participants to approach the OFT and FSA, as appropriate, if they had evidence of such practices.
	In a case such as this, where there are potentially cross-border issues, it is more appropriate for the Commission to lead the investigation. The OFT has and will continue to co-operate fully with the Commission.
	This Government have taken direct action to ease the burden on motorists. Due to action taken in this year’s Budget, fuel duty will have been frozen for nearly three and a half years, the longest duty freeze for over 20 years. That builds on previous action to cut fuel duty, abolish the previous Government’s fuel duty escalator, introduce a fair fuel stabiliser and scrap two increases planned by the previous Government. As a result of Government actions, average pump prices are 13p per litre lower than if the Government had implemented the fuel duty escalator, and they are forecast to be 18p per litre lower
	by the end of the Parliament. Furthermore, as reported by the OFT, the UK consistently has among the lowest pre-tax petrol and diesel prices in Europe.
	In the OFT’s investigation it identified an absence of pricing information on motorways as a concern and did not rule out taking action in some local markets if there is persuasive evidence of anticompetitive behaviour. The Government are now acting on this recommendation and increasing transparency of motorway fuel prices.
	More widely, this Government’s reform of the competition regime will improve the speed, robustness and independence of decision making in UK competition enforcement. Creating a single Competition and Markets Authority and modernising its competition toolkit will improve markets and help consumers and businesses by providing greater coherence in competition practice and a more streamlined approach to decision making. The Government are also publishing a draft consumer rights Bill to give consumers clearer rights in law and to ensure that consumer rights keep pace with technological advances. That will give consumers greater confidence to take up new products, switch suppliers and make online purchases.
	Although we cannot control volatile world energy prices, we can still help people get their bills down. The easiest ways to get energy bills down quickly are to get consumers paying the lowest possible tariffs and to reduce the amount of energy that is wasted.
	We are ensuring that all households get the best deal for their gas and electricity by using the Energy Bill to give statutory backing to Ofgem’s retail market review proposals. Those proposals require energy suppliers to move consumers on poor value dead tariffs to the cheapest standard variable rate tariff, so that no customers are left behind on a poor value, out-of-date tariff. They will also create a new tariffs framework to reduce the number of tariffs that suppliers can offer to four per payment method and simplify tariffs so that the market is much more manageable for consumers. Customers will have personalised information from their supplier on their bills about the cheapest tariff that the supplier offers and any savings that they could make by moving to it.
	These proposals will put consumers in the driving seat, giving them clearer choices and incentivising companies to compete hard for their custom. We hope that Ofgem can keep to its projected timetable, which could see measures begin to be implemented from summer 2013, with full implementation expected by March 2014.
	Through the green deal and the roll-out of smart meters, we are helping people to reduce the amount of energy that they use so that they can have warmer homes for less and lower bills than otherwise. We know that the poorest and the most vulnerable often struggle to pay their energy bills. Through direct payments, such as the winter fuel payment and the cold weather payment, we are helping them directly to manage their bills.
	We are also determined to ensure that Ofgem has the necessary powers so that consumers do not lose out when energy companies break the rules. Although Ofgem can fine energy companies up to 10% of their annual turnover for breaking the rules, unless it can agree compensation for consumers with energy companies, such fines are currently paid into the Consolidated Fund. That is why we are legislating, through the Energy
	Bill, to give Ofgem consumer redress order powers. Those powers will fill the gap and give Ofgem a powerful weapon to ensure that consumers are treated fairly.
	We take very seriously any allegations of price manipulation. The Government are determined to ensure that consumers and motorists get the best possible value for money. We will continue to take the necessary action to deliver value to the consumer.

Caroline Flint: With the greatest respect, I say to the Secretary of State that no amount of tariff simplification or sorting out retail at the pump will deal with the problem that we face today, which is allegations about how energy and petrol are bought and sold, and the way in which the market works.
	The allegations that have been made about the three oil companies, BP, Royal Dutch Shell and Statoil, as well as the price reporting agency, Platts, are extremely concerning. They suggest that those companies have both colluded in reporting distorted prices and prevented others from participating in the price assessment process, with a view to distorting the published price. If the allegations are true, there has been shocking behaviour in the oil market which should be dealt with strongly. I therefore have three questions for the Secretary of State.
	First, the Secretary of State will know that the OFT inquiry concluded at the end of January that the UK fuel market was operating fairly, and that a Competition Commission inquiry was not needed. Given the amendment that has been tabled for debate later today, it will not be lost on hon. Members that it is the European Commission, not any British authority, that is investigating this situation. In light of today’s allegations, will the Secretary of State say whether any British authorities have plans to revisit their own investigations? If the EU investigation uncovers any wrongdoing, it will raise serious questions about the effectiveness of our authorities.
	Secondly, last year we tabled amendments calling for commodities such as oil and gas to be part of the Financial Conduct Authority’s regulatory net, but Ministers refused to act. We argued that the regulatory perimeter needed to be explicitly set out in the Financial Services Act 2012, and that it was insufficient just to add references to LIBOR. Does the Secretary of State now accept that the Office of Fair Trading and the FCA should be explicitly equipped to tackle attempts at rigging commodities trading, whether spot trading, forward contracts, futures contracts hedging or benchmark pricing indices?
	Thirdly, when the allegations of price fixing in the gas market were made last year, we warned that opaque over-the-counter deals and a reliance on price reporting agencies left the market vulnerable to abuse. The latest allegations of price fixing in the oil market raise similar questions. I tabled a parliamentary question in February asking for an update on the earlier investigations, but the Government were unable to provide any more information. Can the Secretary of State give us any assurance that progress is being made, and that we will not need another EU investigation to get to the bottom of what is happening in the gas market?
	As we all know, LIBOR was a massive scandal, but global commodity markets include a vast range of products, including grains, fibre, other food, precious metals and energy, affecting every household. Consumers
	need to know that the prices they pay for their energy or petrol are fair, transparent and not being manipulated by traders. I hope that the Secretary of State will assure the House that no stone will be left unturned to establish the truth behind the allegations.

Edward Davey: I thank the right hon. Lady for her reply. May I make it absolutely clear to her and the House that we take the allegations extremely seriously? If it turns out that hard-pressed motorists and consumers have been hit in the pocket by the manipulation of markets, the full force of the law should come down upon those responsible. Let there be no doubt about that.
	However, I am surprised that the right hon. Lady wishes the Government to interfere directly in competition investigations. It was her Government who rightly moved competition authorities on to an independent basis. We believe it is very important to have independent competition authorities, because that strengthens their ability to act. [Interruption.] She asks from a sedentary position what they are doing, but arguably we could ask what they were doing under the Labour Government. I hope that we can get cross-party consensus that competition authorities should be independent.
	It is good news that the European Commission directorate-general for competition has acted, and I would have thought that the right hon. Lady would welcome that. When there are cross-border allegations, it is important that the European Union can act.
	The right hon. Lady asked whether we would act on the effectiveness of competition authorities. We have. Indeed, I was the Competition Minister who proposed the changes to the competition regime inherited from the previous Government, which are strengthening it. Bringing in the Competition and Markets Authority will make our competition bodies and regime far more robust, so we have a very good record on the issue.
	The right hon. Lady asked whether there should be wider powers to deal with commodities trading. An issue to be considered—we have seen it with LIBOR and the gas market manipulation allegations and now we see it today—is how price reporting agencies operate. They are unregulated bodies, as they were under the previous Government. She will know that the International Organisation of Securities Commissions has been looking into both price reporting agencies in general and oil markets specifically. It reported to the G20 last November, stating that it had potential concerns about the operation of the global market. It did not refer to any particular allegations of manipulation, but there is an ongoing debate, globally as well as in this country, about how we deal with price reporting agencies given that there have been instances of market manipulation. We are taking action; the previous Government did not.
	The right hon. Lady’s final question was what was the state of play with respect to the Ofgem review of gas market manipulation. She described it as an investigation, but I clarify that it is a review of the allegations. She will also know that Ofgem is independent. We do not expect an independent investigator or regulator to give the Government day-by-day reports as that would go against its independent nature and reduce its power. I would be surprised if the Labour party wanted to reduce the power of our independent regulators. These are serious
	allegations, and we stand behind our independent competition authorities and believe they will take action on behalf of the consumer, as they should.

Robert Halfon: Despite the fact that the Government have cut and frozen fuel duty, prices at the pump have gone up by 60% since 2009. Last year a motion for a full OFT inquiry into price fixing by oil companies was passed unanimously in the House. We were approached by a whistleblower who suggested that the things we have seen over the past two days had been going on. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the OFT carried out a limp-wristed, lettuce-like inquiry, when it should have made a full 18-month inquiry into what has been going on? Does he also agree that if proved true, this is a national scandal for the oil companies concerned, and the Government should look at changing the law and put people in prison for fixing oil prices? This has caused misery for millions of motorists up and down the country. Finally, if the accusations are proved, will he impose harsh penalties on all oil companies involved and give the billions of pounds in penalties back to the motorist?

Mr Speaker: I have been generous with the hon. Gentleman, which I hope the House will realise, but I cannot help but feel that his appetite would be satisfied only by a full day’s debate on the matter. He will have to make do with what he has had so far.

Edward Davey: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s questions, and I pay tribute to the way he has campaigned on this issue. He has made a big impact in the House and we have reacted to his campaigns with respect to fuel duty—something the Labour party never did. The OFT is a strong, independent body. It has powers and carried out its investigation. It received a call for information and it is responding to that. It made some warnings. As my hon. Friend knows, it was concerned about a number of areas, not least the transparency of petrol and diesel prices at motorway service stations, which I referred to in my statement. I know that as a result of that, my hon. Friend—indeed, the whole House—will be concerned to ensure that any evidence is put before the European Commission and the UK competition authorities. If any Members of the House or members of the public have such information, I call on them to pass it to the competition authorities.

Angus MacNeil: My constituents in the Hebrides have felt ripped off by the highest fuel prices in the UK for years, and shockingly we now hear of raids associated with suspected price fixing on huge oil companies—household names. Will the Secretary of State ensure that if there are any fines, they are passed on to hard-pressed motorists who might have been ripped off, so that my constituents in Lewis, Harris, Uist and Barra, and everybody else’s constituents, can feel the benefits of any justice? Do these events not call for a review of the OFT’s methodology?

Edward Davey: It is important for the hon. Gentleman, and all right hon. and hon. Members, to realise that these are very early days in the investigation. These are allegations only and we should not jump the gun. As he
	knows, because the allegations are so serious, both UK and European law allows competition authorities to levy serious fines—dependent, obviously, on the particular transgression—should a company be found guilty. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait, but he can be reassured that there are powers to levy heavy fines.

James Paice: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s robustness regarding such manipulation—if, indeed, the raids produce evidence of such manipulation—but will he tell the House how long he thinks it will be before the European Commission is able to report on the issue? In line with those of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), and others, my constituents in South East Cambridgeshire cannot accept that the market is working fairly. In our area we pay a higher price for petrol and diesel than in most other parts of mainland England, yet only 20 miles away, the same retailers and supermarkets are selling road fuel for 1p, 2p, 3p, or in some cases 5p, a litre less. That cannot be a fair marketplace.

Edward Davey: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s question and his support for the robust action that we propose to take, supporting our competition authorities. He asked how long it will take, but I am afraid it is impossible to give a straight answer to that. We have seen with the Ofgem and FSA review into allegations of gas market inflation that such things can take some time, in order to ensure that the allegations are looked into seriously and robustly, as consumers and markets should expect. Equally, I cannot give a timetable for the conclusion of the European Commission’s investigations.
	My right hon. Friend and other colleagues are concerned that the OFT did not find problems in the market, and I have heard that point. It is worth remembering, however, that not only did it mention the absence of price information on motorways, as I mentioned earlier, but it said that it did not rule out taking action in some local markets if there is persuasive evidence of anticompetitive behaviour. The OFT is ready to act, but we need the evidence.

Helen Goodman: Obviously, it is extremely welcome that the European Commission has taken the steps it has, but when the Secretary of State heard it was doing that, did he speak to the OFT and ask why it did not find the same problems only three months ago?

Edward Davey: We heard about the raid of these companies’ offices late yesterday evening. We have seen the OFT’s statement and know that it was accompanying European Commission officials, and we will no doubt find out more as the day goes on. The hon. Lady must remember that these competition bodies are independent, and I hope she will reject the idea that we should get ourselves into these investigations. We will seek more information, but we will not be interfering in the investigations.

Stewart Jackson: This is an issue of parliamentary sovereignty as much as anything else. One thing people say, and one of the most pernicious opinions in the wider electorate, is that the Government only look after big business and not ordinary working families, and—most importantly—that quangos are non-accountable. When will the Secretary of State look hard
	at the efficacy and accountability of the Office of Fair Trading and, if necessary given its lamentable performance, ensure that heads will roll?

Edward Davey: Although I strongly support the sovereignty of this Parliament, for some matters the outcome for consumers can be improved when they are given to an independent or European body. We give authority to the independent central Bank—the Bank of England—because evidence and theory has shown that an independent body can set interest rates in a more effective way. The analysis, not just in this country and Europe but in America, is that an independent competition body is the most effective way. When I was Minister responsible for competition in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, I looked thoroughly across the whole competition regime and made proposals that have gone through the House to bring together the OFT and the Competition Commission into a more robust, speedy and effective regime. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend, Members of the House and the public that this Government are determined to have the most effective competition regime in the world.

Frank Doran: As the Secretary of State will be aware, there has been a long-term disconnect between the price of oil on the market and the price at the pump. He will also know that over the decades, numerous inquiries have been made by the OFT and other competition authorities into the oil and petrol market, but not one has uncovered what is now alleged to have happened. The other issue for the consumer is the LIBOR market, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) mentioned. Fines were paid by shareholders and customers in extra charges, but the men responsible walked away free. We do not want the same thing to happen in the oil and gas industry, and the Secretary of State is in danger of being complacent in relying simply on the competition authorities.

Edward Davey: We are not complacent at all. We stand by the independent bodies. If it was not for them taking action, we would not have had this statement. They are acting, and we should support them. It is good that the European Commission competition DG has looked not only at the UK, but across Europe. Many of those markets are integrated, cross-border markets, so it is vital we take that view. People should not rush to judgment. We must wait for the outcome of the investigations, but the fact they are happening shows that the public authorities do not treat those matters with complacency.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I gently point out to the House that there is a lot of interest in this important statement, which I am keen to accommodate, but, in the final day of the debate on the Gracious Speech, there are literally dozens of colleagues wishing to contribute, so some self-discipline from Back and Front Benches alike is urgently required.

David Mowat: The allegations are serious, and yet the EU energy portal told me this morning that the pre-tax and duty prices of diesel and
	petrol in the UK are among the cheapest in Europe—indeed, they are cheaper than in Germany, France and Holland. Given that, will the Secretary of State tell us whether the focus of the inquiry is the UK market or the cross-border European market, which, on the facts, would appear to have bigger problems?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is right that pre-tax petrol and diesel prices in the UK are among the lowest in the EU. Nevertheless, we cannot be complacent, and it is right that there are investigations—I am sure he was not suggesting that the competition authorities should not investigate. He will know that, as I said in my statement, one issue surrounding the investigation is the reports made by different companies to a price reporting agency. We must wait to find out whether that affects domestic or European markets, but it is the reporting agencies and the prices they report that concern our competition authorities.

Andrew Miller: One aspect of the industry we need to consider is the massive number of refineries that have closed throughout Europe recently. Will the Secretary of State ensure he does all he can to work with companies who are investing in our refining capacity to ensure there is more competition in that part of the market?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the impact of the refining industry on the wider market. My Department is working with the refining industry and various operators in the sector to ensure we have a healthy refining industry in this country. The margins for refineries have been seriously squeezed in recent times. It is critical that we ensure fuel security, which means we need a healthy refining industry.

Robin Walker: In supporting the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), I commend the Secretary of State for making changes to the legislation he inherited from the Leader of the Opposition to ensure that fines levied in the UK are returned to consumers rather than to companies. However, I urge him to make urgent representations to the European Commission to ensure that, if the investigation leads to fines, the detriment to UK consumers, taxpayers and motorists is returned to those UK consumers, taxpayers and motorists.

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. He is right that the Government are legislating to ensure that, when Ofgem finds misdemeanours by companies, fines go to the consumer and not to the Consolidated Fund. That is an extra tooth for the independent regulator, and puts consumers’ rights ahead, where they should be. He asks me to make representations to the European Commission to see whether European law can be amended to mirror the change we have just made. Clearly, there is a case for that, but I may need to speak to my colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills before I make unilateral representations.

Gregory Campbell: The general public will have two things in mind: open competition and cheaper prices at the pump. Beyond the European Commission ruling—the Secretary of
	State has said that we do not know the timing of it—what steps will the Government and the OFT take to ensure that prices come down, that people see openness and transparency, and that the Government reduce fuel duty rather than put increases on hold?

Edward Davey: Like every right hon. and hon. Member, the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the price of fuel and the impact that that has on household budgets. I know from speaking to right hon. and hon. Members who represent rural constituencies how the price of fuel impacts on them. That is one reason why my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has paid such attention to the matter since he entered Her Majesty’s Treasury. The Government’s record on bearing down on fuel duty, which is one thing we can directly influence, is exemplary. We have had the longest freeze in fuel duty for 20 years—that is us playing our part.

Duncan Hames: The allegations of price rigging that are being investigated by the European Commission directorate-general for competition stretch over nearly a decade—they go back over years under the Secretary of State’s Government and over even more years under the previous one. At 8p a litre on the price of fuel, the scale of the price distortions is potentially vast. Given the scale of the impact on consumers’ expenditure and on our economies, how can fines compensate consumers in Britain and on the continent?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is right to ask that question, but I remind him and the House that we are talking about allegations, and that we are at the early stage of investigations. It is important that people remember that.
	One benefit of the investigations by our independent competition authorities is that we can try to ensure that our markets work more effectively. If manipulation is proved, and if it is proved that the manipulation led to higher prices, we could see lower prices, which would be welcomed by many outside the House.

Barry Gardiner: In January, the OFT did not find no evidence; it found evidence of price fixing, albeit limited evidence. At that time, did the Secretary of State ask what the evidence was? If so, what consideration did he give it, and what actions did he recommend as result?

Edward Davey: I have not seen that specific evidence, but I know that it was very small and that the OFT felt that the evidence was unable to lead it to a further investigation. However, it was clear that the OFT announced a call for information—the Government supported that. The OFT wants people to bring forward information, which is exactly what they should do.

Jason McCartney: Commuters from my constituency to Leeds, Manchester and beyond who have been suffering the nightmare of the M62 roadworks will welcome the fact that fuel duty is 13p per litre lower under this Government than it would have been under the previous one. However, I echo the
	suggestion that fines, if they are levied on oil companies found guilty of price fixing, should be passed on to consumers and hard-pressed commuters.

Edward Davey: I believe that the law does not currently allow fines levied by the European Commission to be passed on directly to consumers, but consumers will benefit from any lower prices that result from freer and fairer markets, which Government Members are determined to see.

Paul Flynn: What is the Secretary of State doing to prevent another rip-off by Électricité de France, which has an atrocious record in cost overruns and delays, and which demands a 40-year guarantee of twice the current price for building Hinkley Point, at a time when abundant sources of energy are being discovered throughout the world? Will he guarantee that the House debates that before a deal is done with EDF?

Edward Davey: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting the subject of nuclear power into this statement. Some of the tests in our negotiations with EDF on a contract for difference in relation to the proposed nuclear reactor at Hinkley Point C are to ensure that we get value for money and that the proposal is affordable.

Michael Crockart: While the European Commission’s involvement is welcome, will my right hon. Friend outline what more UK authorities, such as the Competition Commission and the OFT, can do to ensure that fuel duty cuts made by the Government end up in the pockets of motorists rather than in the coffers of oil companies?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend makes a good point. UK authorities are working extremely closely with European competition authorities. Indeed, they accompanied them on their raids of various companies’ offices. They are active in this investigation, and I hope he takes reassurance from that.

William McCrea: The Minister constantly congratulates his Government on keeping the price of petrol down. Why then, when I travel to America, do I find that consumers there pay half the price for their fuel than we pay in the United Kingdom? Why is the price of fuel in the Irish Republic 10p less than it is over the border in Northern Ireland?

Edward Davey: The difference in the tax levied in the United States on petrol and diesel might be one of the main explanations. I have not made a study on the difference in price between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland either, but that might also have something to do with duty differentials.

Philip Hollobone: My constituents will be very concerned about the price-fixing allegations and will want the oil company executives, if found guilty, to go to prison. Today’s findings have come about as a result of unannounced inspections by the European Commission. To what extent does the Secretary of State believe that the OFT, Ofgem and the Financial Services Authority are undertaking unannounced inspections in their inquiries? If they are not, should they not be encouraged to do so?

Edward Davey: It is interesting that my hon. Friend supports the use of these powers by the European Commission competition directorate-general. I am grateful that he recognises that it is important to have an independent, strong competition body at European level. I think people will have noticed his support for that, and I am grateful for it. He asked whether the OFT, Ofgem and other regulators involved in enforcing competition have those powers. I believe that they do. If I am wrong, I will write to them. He will recognise, as I hope everyone does, that it is not for the Government to tell an independent regulatory body to go and do dawn raids. It is up to them to decide to do that, based on the evidence. We strongly support them when they use those powers, and we strongly support them in the powers they need to gather the information ahead of such raids. If the OFT and Ofgem were to make such raids based on proper information, we would support them.

Debbie Abrahams: When did the Secretary of State find out about the European Commission investigation? If the investigation had not been undertaken by the EU, would the Government have been any the wiser?

Edward Davey: I found out about it late last night. We do not know on what evidence the Commission decided to launch the raids. Apparently, there were suspicions that companies had been giving a price reporting agency false information about prices in the market. We need to know more about what information it had. The question is whether the UK competition authorities had similar information. To date, my understanding is that they did not.

Robert Smith: I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The hard-pressed motorists of the north-east of Scotland—for whom a car is an essential, not a luxury—will want to be confident that they are paying the best price possible for their fuel at the pump. To that end, I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to help the European Commission and to encourage the companies to co-operate fully with the inquiry. Will he take forward to the Commission the need to co-operate with the G20 if there is any evidence that the alleged price fixing extends beyond EU borders?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend has been a doughty defender of motorists in north-east Scotland, making the point, with other hon. Members, that people in rural areas often depend on their car and therefore have no choice but to use it. The G20 received the report from the International Organisation of Securities Commissions in November and I believe it is being looked at carefully. The issue of price reporting agencies and price benchmarks is one that both UK and global regulators are paying much greater attention to. One might ask the question: why were they not being paid attention to before?

Mark Lazarowicz: My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) made the point that if this is happening in energy, there is every reason to believe that it could well apply to other commodities. What are
	the Government going to do, with the EU if necessary, to be proactive and to ensure that there is no price fixing in other areas of international trade? We do not want to come back in a few years’ time and wonder how we are going to compensate consumers in other fields.

Edward Davey: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is behind the times. We are already acting at both a global and a European level to support work that looks into how benchmarks and price reporting agencies operate, and to check that there is no danger of price manipulation or of rigging the markets in another way. The Government are taking this very seriously. We are working with a number of bodies, including the International Organisation of Securities Commissions, and are operating at EU and G20 level. We are very proactive on this issue.

Andrew Percy: My constituents are concerned about why they pay more for a gallon of petrol than those in other parts of the country, so they will welcome the investigation. What is the Secretary of State doing at a European level to ensure that the European Commission does not cut off this country’s access to Canadian oil sands, which has the potential to bring down prices at the pump for everybody?

Edward Davey: The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) is actively engaged at the European Council on this. It is a rather more complicated question than my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) implies. It is not so much about access to our markets, but how those tar oil sands and any fuel produced from them are rated in terms of their carbon content. The debate is complicated, but the UK and my hon. Friend in the Department for Transport are pushing hard to obtain a fair outcome.

Margaret Ritchie: The Centre for Economics and Business Research reported in March 2013 that the average weekly spend on vehicle fuel is higher in Northern Ireland than in comparable regions in Britain, and takes up a significantly larger proportion of consumers’ net income. What further action will the Government take to lower fuel duty to provide equality for all consumers?

Edward Davey: As the hon. Lady will know, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor keeps these issues under constant review. He has an extremely strong record of delivering fuel duty freezes and not proceeding with rises proposed by the previous Government. I am sure that he will consider her question and early representation for next year’s Budget.

Roger Williams: If there has been market manipulation by big companies in the oil market, then as well as consumers suffering, small independent suppliers and retailers who were not part of the scam will also have suffered. Independents are important in rural areas, as they are often the only supplier. While the Secretary of State will not want to intervene directly with the regulatory bodies he mentioned, I hope he will give them the hurry-up, because we want to ensure that no more damage is done to independent suppliers in this country.

Edward Davey: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of businesses, in particular small and medium-sized enterprises. If the allegations are proved to be correct, and petrol and diesel prices have been higher than they otherwise should have been in a fair market, then they will have been hit as well. He will know from previous debates on petrol and diesel prices the impact that fuel prices have on the wider haulage industry. It is vital that we get to the bottom of this not just for consumers, but for our whole economy.

Russell Brown: If anything untoward is discovered at the end of this process, it will not show the OFT in a good light. While price is important, the quality of fuel that people purchase is also an issue. I find that more and more of my constituents complain about poor mileage from cheaper fuel. I put to the Secretary of State a quick calculation: 2p a litre extra and two miles per gallon is far better than cheaper fuel. I have asked Which? to conduct a survey on fuel quality. Does the Secretary of State agree that we should be looking at that too, and will he support an investigation into the quality of the fuel that people are purchasing at the pumps?

Edward Davey: That is an extremely interesting point. I hope the hon. Gentleman is liaising with his local trading standards department, in case there are any serious problems, but I shall certainly ask my officials to look into it. It is not just the quality of the fuel, however, but fuel efficiency that matters: we need far more fuel efficient cars and we need standards that send a signal to the industry that we want it to make its cars more fuel efficient. The Government have a proud record of supporting the electric motor industry, and the UK is beginning to be a real producer of electric cars.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Daventry residents will be unsurprised by the Commission’s raids on oil companies last night. In fact, they are fed up to the back teeth with paying way more than other consumers nearby. I was interested in what the Secretary of State said about anti-competitive actions and how the OFT might be looking at local markets in the future. Could it not look for evidence simply by going to a price comparison website, where straightaway it would be able to see prices and demonstrate such behaviour historically? Furthermore, does he recognise the concern about such European Commission investigations, which can limp on for decades?

Edward Davey: I hope that the hon. Gentleman supports the fact that the European Commission is investigating the market. It is important that it gets our full support. On the OFT and its finding of possible problems in local markets, I am sure that the OFT does exactly what he says, but it might well need more information to prove manipulation. Again, I call on hon. Members and members of the public to provide such information, if they have it, to the competition authorities.

Nia Griffith: Last year, Labour called for commodities such as oil to come under the Financial Conduct Authority’s regulatory net, but Ministers refused to act. Not only are people in rural areas hit by high fuel prices, but many of them rely on oil for heating. What
	assurances can the Secretary of State give them that he will now strengthen the OFT and the FCA by giving them the power to deal with commodity price rigging?

Edward Davey: We certainly are strengthening the competition authorities in this country, as I explained earlier. We are looking at a range of issues that have come to light as a result of the LIBOR scandal, the allegations of gas market manipulation and so on. As I explained to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), we are working not just nationally, but at a European level and globally to ensure that these commodity markets are fair and not being manipulated. Our record on this stands in stark contrast to the inaction of the last Government.

Guy Opperman: People in the north-east welcome the three-year fuel duty freeze, but we have concerns that the OFT, despite having had repeated evidence, particularly in rural Northumberland, of a lack of competition, has still failed to act. Does the Secretary of State agree that a way forward would be to summon the OFT to the House so that all MPs can make representations in his presence and get some action from it? No one has any faith in the OFT.

Edward Davey: I am sorry to hear that my hon. Friend does not have faith in the independent competition authorities. According to the empirical evidence of how they compare to other competition authorities around the world, they actually score extremely highly. Nevertheless, even though I saw those findings when I was competition Minister, I wanted to strengthen them still further, because there is no room for complacency. I hope he realises that the Government will ensure that the competition authorities have the powers they need.

Albert Owen: My constituents are now paying more for petrol and diesel at the pumps not least thanks to the VAT increase of 2.5p on every litre which the Secretary of State and his Government introduced. He boasted in his statement that he was going to give Ofgem extra powers and responsibilities. In light of these allegations, will he seriously consider giving the OFT similar powers and extending its remit, so that we can prevent this from happening again in this country, instead of relying on the European Commission?

Edward Davey: Some of the information and allegations of market manipulation are cross-border, so it might well turn out that these allegations required a European competition authority. It is important that we have a strong European competition regulator, and I hope the hon. Gentleman would accept that, but of course we keep under review the powers of the regulators and competition authorities in general. The Government have acted strongly to strengthen them.

Mark Durkan: Businesses that we have long known to be profiteers now stand suspected of being racketeers. While the allegation of price manipulation and derivatives distortion might take some time to investigate, does the Secretary of State accept that the wider question of commodity price indices speculation needs to be addressed at the G8, particularly in order to limit the degree to which financial institutions can pass off such speculation as legitimate areas of investment?

Edward Davey: I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s main point: there are concerns that these price benchmarks have been manipulated, and some of the evidence suggests, if they prove true, that they have been manipulated for many years. I am proud that the Government are taking action. We cannot be complacent. Too many consumers and businesses could be hit if these sorts of allegations prove true. We have to wait for the investigations to be completed, but if any company is found to have breached the rules, the full force of the law will be used.

Speaker’s Statement

Mr Speaker: I have received a report from the Tellers in the Aye Lobby for the Division at 6.59 pm yesterday, Tuesday 14 May. The hon. Members for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and for Poole (Robert Syms) have informed me that the number of those voting Aye was erroneously reported as 254, instead of 244. I will direct the Clerk to correct the numbers in the Journal accordingly. The Ayes were 244 and the Noes were 316.
	I have another matter I must draw to the attention of the House before we move on to the main business of the day. Owing to human error, a motion in the name of the Leader of the House to refer item 33 on today’s future business part B to a Delegated Legislation Committee was omitted from today’s Order Paper. A corrigendum paper has been issued and is available in the Vote Office. The motion may be moved today as the last item before the Adjournment debate.
	Members might also wish to be reminded that the book for entering the private Members’ Bill ballot is open for Members to sign in the No Lobby. It will be open until the House rises today, except during Divisions.
	I also remind Members that nominations for the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee must be submitted to the Table Office by 5 pm today.

Debate on the Address
	 — 
	[6th Day]

Debate resumed (Order, 14 May).
	Question again proposed,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
	Most Gracious Sovereign,
	We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

Economic Growth

Mr Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected amendment (g) in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I have also selected amendment (b) in the name of Mr John Baron and amendment (e) in the name of Mr Elfyn Llwyd for separate Divisions at the end of the debate. Those amendments may therefore be debated together with the Leader of the Opposition’s amendment. The amendments will be put in the order: (g), (b) and (e).

Andrew Lansley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. For the benefit of the House, may I ask you to set out your application of the terms of Standing Order No. 33, relating to the number of amendments to the Queen’s Speech motion that are selectable?

Mr Speaker: Yes, I am very happy to do so, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I believe that there is a need to interpret the Standing Orders in a way that facilitates the business of the House in a developing parliamentary context. Conditions and expectations today are very different from those in October 1979, when that Standing Order was made. I must tell the House that I have studied the wording of Standing Order No. 33 very carefully. My interpretation is that the words “a further amendment” in the fifth line of the Standing Order may be read as applying to more than one amendment successively. In other words, only one amendment selected by me is being moved at any time. Once that amendment is disposed of, a further amendment may then be called. I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—almost as grateful, I suspect, as he is to me.

Edward Balls: I beg to move amendment (g), at end add:
	‘but regret that the Gracious Speech has no answer to a flatlining economy, the rising cost of living and a deficit reduction plan that has stalled, nor does it address the long-term economic challenges Britain faces; believe that the priority for the Government now should be growth and jobs and that we need reform of the European Union, not four years of economic uncertainty which legislating now for an in/out referendum in 2017 would create; call on your Government to take action now to kickstart the economy, help families with the rising cost of living, and make long-term economic reforms for the future; and call on your Government to implement the five point plan for jobs and growth, including bringing forward long-term infrastructure investment, building 100,000 affordable homes and introducing a compulsory jobs guarantee for the long-term unemployed in order to create
	jobs and help to get the benefits bill and deficit down, legislate now for a decarbonisation target for 2030 in order to give business the certainty it needs to invest, implement the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and establish a proper British Investment Bank.’.
	Thank you for your ruling, Mr Speaker. It is certainly in line with my understanding of the particular interpretation of that Standing Order, and I hope that it satisfies the Leader of the House as well.
	It is an honour to open the final debate on the Queen’s Speech today, and to move the amendment, which you have selected on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition. It is a Labour amendment that calls for decisive action and a stimulus now to kick-start the recovery, boost living standards and get the deficit down, including 100,000 affordable homes, urgent action to accelerate infrastructure investment and reforms to get young people and the long-term unemployed back to work, with a compulsory jobs guarantee.
	The amendment also proposes radical long-term reforms to promote economic growth and investment in manufacturing, services and our creative industries by implementing the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, legislating now for a 2030 decarbonisation target to give businesses the certainty they need to invest here in Britain and setting up a proper British investment bank. It is a one nation Labour amendment, which stands in marked contrast to the complete and utter shambles we have seen from the Government over the past seven days since the Gracious Address—a divided coalition, out of ideas and running out of road, and a weak Prime Minister, out of touch and fast losing control of his party and his own Cabinet.

Nadhim Zahawi: How much more money would the shadow Chancellor need to borrow to deliver on his alternative Queen’s Speech?

Edward Balls: As I said in my opening remarks and as our amendment says, we need a stimulus now. We, the International Monetary Fund, the Business Secretary and The Economist all agree that taking action now to kick-start our recovery is the right thing to do. We should borrow now to get growth moving, so that we get our deficit down.
	I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that that very question was asked of the Business Secretary on the “Today” programme just a few weeks ago. He was asked by John Humphries, “So, should you borrow more?” Guess what the Business Secretary said? He said:
	“Well we are already borrowing more”.
	That is the truth—£245 billion more. I will tell you what I want to do—[Interruption.] I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. I want to get the borrowing down. Under this Chancellor, the borrowing has flatlined—the same last year, this year and the year after. That is the reality.

Charlie Elphicke: Will the right hon. Gentleman come clean with the House: how much more would he borrow?

Edward Balls: As I said, I want to see the borrowing coming down, and it is not coming down because this Chancellor has flatlined the economy. We have had almost no growth since 2010 and the result is that he is borrowing £245 billion more.
	I have made speeches in the last two Queen’s Speech debates: I have said that there should be a temporary VAT cut, which would cost £12 billion. I have called for a national insurance cut, VAT at 5% and for infrastructure investment to be brought forward. If those things had been done, borrowing would be coming down now; under this Chancellor, it is not. The economy has flatlined and the deficit reduction plan has flatlined as well.
	With the IMF here in town, what the Government should do is listen to the IMF chief economist, who says they are “playing with fire”. The IMF has said they should slow the pace of deficit reduction, stimulate the economy and get growth moving to get the deficit down. That is what the Government should do.

Christopher Pincher: Is that the “borrow, borrow, borrow” advice that the shadow Chancellor gave to the President of France, whose deficit is well above the EU average and whose economy has shrunk by 0.2%? Is that the kind of advice he is giving to his fraternal friend?

Edward Balls: The EU produced the latest growth figures today. The figures for France are disappointing. France has gone into recession. It is in the eurozone, trapped in austerity, and its economy is not growing. I looked at the figures today to see what French growth had been since the Chancellor’s spending review compared with the UK. Since the spending review in 2010, growth in France has been 1.1% and growth in the UK has been 1.1% as well, compared with Germany, which has had three times more growth, and America, which has had four times more growth. The eurozone is locked into austerity by virtue of those countries’ membership of the single currency. Our Chancellor imposed on our economy austerity that went too far, too fast, and what has happened? He has delivered the same growth performance over the last two years as that of the French economy, well behind that of Germany and America, where, as we now know, the deficit is coming down.

David Rutley: With the IMF in town, will the shadow Chancellor confirm that the IMF has forecast that the UK will be growing faster than France over the next two years?

Edward Balls: The hon. Gentleman should be congratulating me and the Labour Government on not taking us into the single currency in 2003. That is what he should be doing, but if he wants to have a debate about the IMF, this is what the IMF said in September 2011:
	“If activity were to undershoot current expectations, countries that face historically low yields”—
	such as Germany and the United Kingdom—
	“should also consider delaying some of their planned adjustment”.
	In April—just a month ago—it said:
	“In the UK, where recovery is weak owing to lacklustre demand, consideration should be given to greater near-term flexibility in the fiscal adjustment path.”
	That is technical language that means the Chancellor should slow the pace of deficit reduction, provide a stimulus and get the economy moving to get the deficit down. What do we hear from the Treasury? Treasury advisers, who a year ago were saying the IMF was on their side, now say that the Chancellor will ignore the IMF and plough on regardless with a failing plan.

Guy Opperman: I am glad to see that the shadow Chancellor is beginning to agree with our plans for regional banking reform with local banks. However, he would improve his banking credibility if he were to repay the £3 million owed by the Labour party to the Co-operative bank. Does he agree with that?

Edward Balls: I have to say—

Nadhim Zahawi: You have to answer it!

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Zahawi, you have already intervened with some gusto, but I would ask you to behave in a seemly manner, as the people of Stratford-on-Avon would expect and are themselves wont to do.

Edward Balls: The hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) has made some wise interventions in these debates. He said just last year that
	“too often we are talking about the 50p tax, a tax which affects those on six times the average salary, rather than the taxes on the lowest paid.”
	It is a pity his Front-Bench team did not listen to his views in this year’s Budget.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Edward Balls: I want to make some progress, then I will take some more interventions.
	This is not simply the Queen’s Speech of a coalition Government who have ground to a halt; it is much worse than that. At a time when living standards are falling; when child poverty is rising; when more than 950,000 young people are out of work; when, as we learned today, unemployment is rising again and is now higher than at the general election; when, as we also learned today, prices are rising four times faster than wages in our economy; when our economy has flatlined for three years; when overall business investment has stalled and actually fallen in the past two years; when, as a result, our triple A credit rating has been downgraded; when the Office for Budget Responsibility says that the deficit reduction plan has completely stalled; and when the International Monetary Fund is now in town saying that the Chancellor is “playing with fire” by sticking to his failing plan, you would think that the priority for the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Cabinet and the Conservative party would be to see what they could do to boost economic growth and long-term investment in our country. But no, it seems that that is not their priority.

Andrea Leadsom: We have already had a credit downgrade from one of the agencies, and the agency made it clear that that was a result of the problems that our economy has had in recovering. Is the right hon. Gentleman not concerned that if we were to abandon our plans, there could be a further downgrade? If we simply did as he suggests and opened the floodgates to more debt and borrowing, we would put our economy into severe crisis as a result of rising interest rates and a lack of credibility in international markets.

Edward Balls: I ask the hon. Lady to reflect for a moment on the logic of her position. For the past three years, she and the Chancellor have consistently said that they had to stick to the plan, even though growth was low, even
	though the deficit was not coming down and even though living standards were under pressure, because otherwise they would lose the triple A credit rating. Now, they have lost the triple A rating, but they still maintain that they have to stick to the plan. That is completely illogical. The credit rating agency said in terms that it had downgraded us because there was no growth in the economy, and that that was choking off deficit reduction. Sticking with a failing plan that is not working and that has resulted in the deficit reduction being stalled is not the way to keep our credit rating—if that is the Government’s objective. The way to keep it is to get the economy moving, get people investing and get people back into long-term sustainable jobs. Until we do that, the Chancellor is going to continue to fail.

Andrea Leadsom: rose—

Edward Balls: If the hon. Lady would like to have another go, I am happy to give way to her.

Andrea Leadsom: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for letting me have another go. I put it to him that he really does not understand the point about the credit rating agency in this context. The whole point about confidence in the British economy is that people need confidence in Britain’s ability to get out of the economic mess that his Government left us in. This is not about the absolute level; it is about market confidence. He must surely understand that keeping a very good credit rating is essential in order to have an affordable cost of borrowing.

Edward Balls: I do not want to prolong this argument, but I must explain to the hon. Lady the term structure of interest rates. The 10-year bond yields are the accumulation of market expectations of three-month interest rates added up every three months over 10 years. Why are our long-term interest rates so low? It is because people think that short-term rates are going to stay low because the economy is flat on its back. People would have to be economically illiterate to think that our long-term interest rates were driven by market confidence at a time when we are being downgraded by the agencies. Our long-term interest rates are low because our economy is not growing.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: rose—

Edward Balls: I was hoping to debate the Europe issue with the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I am happy to give way to him on this one as well.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I look forward to debating many issues with the right hon. Gentleman. The markets show confidence in this Government’s policy by keeping interest rates low. This is not purely to do with an expectation of where short-term rates will be; it is about confidence in the creditworthiness of the British Government under this Chancellor.

Edward Balls: I have to say that that is a deluded view of the way in which credit ratings work. Let us not forget that in 2007 these same credit rating agencies were saying, “Stick with Lehman Brothers” and giving America a triple A rating despite all the sub-prime lending. That
	is the reality. The fact is that the credit rating agencies are downgrading Britain because our economy is not growing. That is the fundamental problem.
	I will give the hon. Gentleman a bit of ground, however. It is true that the Labour Government left a longer-term interest rate structure than other economies. We had far less foreign currency borrowing and more index-linked borrowing than other countries. That helped, but the fundamental thing was that we did not join the single currency. In Spain, Italy and elsewhere, we see a currency risk premium, which relates to the central bank’s ability and willingness to stand behind sovereign debt. That is not an issue here. Our interest rates are low, and they have fallen because our economy is not growing. The market is therefore reflecting expectations of continuing stagnation. I am afraid that that is the reality—aside from the political rhetoric of the Chancellor.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: In my previous intervention, I was careful to talk about the markets, not the credit rating agencies. It is the markets that count, because they reflect people investing their money. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the credit rating agencies got the whole of the pre-crash period wrong, but it is the markets we need to bank on.

Edward Balls: Unlike the Chancellor, the markets do not pay a huge amount of respect to the credit rating agencies. The hon. Gentleman agrees with me on that. That is why, two or three years ago, it was so ridiculous for the Chancellor to say, “Trust me. I’ll keep us as a safe haven because I’ll keep the triple A credit rating.” We told him, in 2011 and 2012, that the plan was not working, that the economy was not growing and that the deficit was not coming down, but when we told him to change course, he said, “I can’t do that because the credit rating agencies will downgrade us.” Well, they downgraded us anyway, because the economy was not growing.

Andrew Selous: The shadow Chancellor believes in plain speaking, so I want to give him a third—and perhaps final—opportunity to tell us the amount of extra borrowing that his policies would require. Just a number—plain and simple.

Edward Balls: I am not going to write our Budget for 2015 two years ahead. That would be the wrong thing to do. Right now, if the Chancellor had done what I recommended a year ago, borrowing would be coming down. At the moment, however, it is absolutely flat.
	What have we learnt in the last seven days? What have we learnt from today’s Tory amendment about the priority of the Conservative party? What are Conservative Members demanding in their amendment? What are they rebelling on? Accelerated bank reform? Energy market reform? Housing investment? Infrastructure investment? Tough welfare reform through a compulsory jobs guarantee? If they want all that, they can vote for our amendment today. But no, according to the Tory amendment, the No. 1 priority that is so vital that Conservative Members are planning to vote against their own Government’s Queen’s Speech involves enabling legislation to allow Eurosceptic Conservative MPs to try to take Britain out of the European Union.
	The Tory amendment states that those Members
	“regret that an EU referendum bill was not included in the Gracious Speech.”
	Let me tell the House what they should be regretting. They should regret the fact that, after three years of pursuing a failing economic plan, the Chancellor is still ploughing on regardless, even when the IMF is telling him to change course. They should regret the fact that, when calculations based on Institute for Fiscal Studies figures show that families are, on average, £891 worse off this year, the Government have cut taxes for the highest earners, giving a £100,000 tax cut to 13,000 millionaires. They should regret the fact that the Government have refused to use the Queen’s Speech to put in place the long-term reforms necessary for our economic future—reforms that I fear will not be in the spending review, either. The Chancellor and the House should regret, too, the fact that the Conservative party seems to have been hijacked by those within its ranks, including within the Cabinet, who are determined to lead Britain out of the EU regardless of the impact on investment and jobs.

Bob Russell: Will the shadow Chancellor confirm that the number of Labour Members who have signed this Tory amendment on the EU referendum is now in double figures?

Edward Balls: I have not seen the figures, but I would be happy to study them—it is when it spreads to the Cabinet that there is a real problem. The hon. Gentleman should regret the 15% rise in long-term youth unemployment in his constituency, which was confirmed today. I have to say that this coalition was really not worth his support.

Peter Bone: The shadow Chancellor is generous in giving way. It is a shame he is not the leader of his party, because if he was he would make sure it was not the anti-referendum party—I think those were his very words. The message from today’s debate and tonight’s vote will be that Labour is against an EU referendum and the Conservatives are in favour of it. To put the facts straight, it is not just Conservative Members or just Labour and Democratic Unionist Members who signed the amendment—a Liberal Democrat Member signed it, too.

Edward Balls: I will read our amendment to the hon. Gentleman so that he knows exactly what we will vote for. We say
	“that the priority for the Government now should be growth and jobs and that we need reform of the European Union, not four years of economic uncertainty which legislating now for an in/out referendum in 2017 would create”.
	Let me quote to the hon. Gentleman the press release issued this morning by the Engineering Employers Federation, which knows about manufacturing investment in the long term. It says:
	“EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation believes the current debate is ‘letting British business down’ with politicians making claims that the EU isn’t working for Britain rather than focussing on how to work to make it better”.
	Let me set out further our position on this reform agenda, which has been set out in recent weeks and months by the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Foreign Secretary, the shadow Home Secretary and me.
	Instead of four years of uncertainty, our Labour amendment says that the priority now should not be walking out of meetings or being entirely ignored but arguing with influence to get the reforms agreed. These include reform of the common agricultural policy, tough new budget discipline in the European budget with stronger independent audit—
	[Interruption.] 
	Conservative Members should listen, as I would have thought they agreed with many of these things. The priorities include reform of family-related payments to EU migrants, greater national flexibility in transitional arrangements, a balanced growth plan and a new growth commissioner, an end to the wasteful Strasbourg Parliament and more powers for national Parliaments.
	Let us reflect for a moment on what the president of the CBI said just a few weeks ago:
	“UK membership of the EU encourages large company capital investments within the UK, creating jobs and wealth that trickle down to medium and small company suppliers”—
	the kind of trickle down we quite like. He continued:
	“Departure would be bad for employment and growth across a broad business spectrum.”
	This is what Sir Richard Branson wrote in January:
	“An exit would be very bad for British business and the economy as a whole...The EU is the UK’s biggest trading partner, its combined market dwarfs the US and China. For that reason alone the UK must stay in to help rebuild the EU.”
	He was right.
	Let this sink in: Conservative Back Benchers, with the blessing of many Conservative Front Benchers, are proposing today an amendment that aims to break our ties with our main trading partner, blight inward investment into the UK and put at risk upwards of 3 million jobs. Let it sink in, too, that the leader of the Conservative party, the Prime Minister of our country is not just too weak to do anything about it—he is caving in, day by day, to their demands.

Pete Wishart: I agree with the shadow Chancellor almost entirely on Europe, but will he pledge today that he will not support an in/out referendum that might take the UK out of Europe?

Edward Balls: I want us to stay in the European Union; I am absolutely clear about that. Our amendment is absolutely clear, too, about the effect of an in/out referendum announced now. I am going to quote someone, which might go down well with the hon. Gentleman but perhaps not so well with some Conservative Members. Lord Heseltine said:
	“To commit to a referendum about a negotiation that hasn’t begun, on a timescale you cannot predict, on an outcome that’s unknown, where Britain’s appeal as an inward investment market would be the centre of the debate, seems to me like an unnecessary gamble”.
	My answer to the question of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is that we will not take that unnecessary gamble now. It would be the wrong thing to do. This is exactly the same position as the one the Prime Minister and the Chancellor joined us in the Lobby to vote against in October 2011. How things change!
	Let us remind ourselves of what the Prime Minister told the Conservative party conference in 2006; it is worth reading the whole quote so we can understand its full impact:
	“For too long, we were having a different conversation. Instead of talking about the things that most people care about, we talked about what we cared about most. While parents worried about childcare, getting the kids to school, balancing work and family life—we were banging on about Europe.”
	His party has certainly been banging on about Europe day after day over the last week—banging the nails in the coffin of Tory modernisation and in the coffin of this Prime Minister’s prime ministership, too.
	We should not forget that this is the Prime Minister who last summer rejected calls for an in/out referendum. Then, just three months ago in his much-heralded Europe speech, the Prime Minister pulled his referendum stunt—a Europe speech to wrong-foot Labour and UKIP and unite the Conservative party. This is how The Independent reported Downing street’s gleeful boasting back in January.

John Baron: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Balls: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman what The Independent said about Downing street; then we can reflect on it together in a few moments. It said:
	“They judged that, to calm the fractious Tory pack, they had to split off the hardliners who want to leave the EU from pragmatic Eurosceptics...They also needed to unite the Tories at the next election and reduce the threat from the UK Independence Party...The best way, they calculated, would be to promise an ‘in/out’ referendum after 2015. The trick seems to have worked”,
	the article concluded,
	“at least in the short term.”
	Downing street claimed the speech took six months to formulate; it has taken just three months to unravel. We have seen Tory Back Benchers last week defying the Prime Minister to vote against the Queen’s Speech; former Tory Chancellors openly calling for Britain to leave the European Union; serving Cabinet Ministers joining the chorus at the weekend, saying they would vote for Britain to leave the EU now; and the embarrassing spectacle and truly ludicrous sight of a British Prime Minister in Washington negotiating an EU-US trade deal, while back home members of his own Cabinet say they would vote to exclude Britain from its benefits.
	Then, on Monday night, we heard the Prime Minister’s panic announcement that he would, after all, publish a draft referendum Bill—not as Prime Minister, but as leader of the Tory party—only to be told by his own Back Benchers the next morning that it was not good enough because the public did not trust him, and they did not trust him either. This is really what it means for a Prime Minister to be “in office, but not in power”. It is not John Major all over again; it is much worse than that, because at least he tried to stand up to the Eurosceptics in his Cabinet.

John Baron: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman fundamentally misrepresents the amendment. Members in all parts of the House believe that the time has come to give the British people their say on our relationship
	with the European Union. May I put this question to the right hon. Gentleman? Why does he not trust the British people on the issue?

Edward Balls: I will take a second intervention from the hon. Gentleman if he will tell me how he would vote in the referendum.

John Baron: No, no, no—[Interruption.] All right, I will answer. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Let us hear the hon. Gentleman.

John Baron: I will answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question most directly, provided he promises to answer my question most directly. My answer to his question is that if the referendum were held tomorrow, I would vote “out”, but I support the Prime Minister in his idea of holding a referendum in 2017. If he can successfully renegotiate and re-engineer an EU based on trade and not on politics, that will be a different kettle of fish, and we will judge it at the time.
	May I now return to my question to the right hon. Gentleman? He has ducked it, and that is what gives politicians a bad name outside this place. Why will he not give the electorate their say on this issue?

Edward Balls: For precisely the reason that I gave in an earlier answer—and I have to say that I am not sure that the public like to hear us repeating ourselves.
	Let me quote the words of another business organisation, London First. [Hon. Members: “Answer the question!”] I will answer the question. London First—[Interruption.] London First—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. We have a long afternoon ahead of us. It would be good to hear everyone’s views on this subject, which means not shouting over speakers.

Edward Balls: No wonder the Prime Minister has gone to America, Madam Deputy Speaker, if that is what he has put up with.
	Let me quote the words of London First—[Interruption]—which is my answer.
	“The announcement that a referendum on our membership of the EU may be held in a few years’ time, dependent on the result of the next General Election, risks condemning the UK economy to several years of further uncertainty.”
	London First is completely right. We can see why the Prime Minister is so worried. If that is the kind of support he has, no wonder he is in trouble.

John Baron: We have just had an exchange in the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, in which I directly answered a question in return for the Chancellor’s directly answering mine. [Hon. Members: “Shadow Chancellor.”] I mean the shadow Chancellor. He has refused to answer my question. Let me ask it one more time. Why is he denying the British public their say on Europe?

Edward Balls: I am the shadow Chancellor, not the Chancellor—at least for now.
	I have answered the question, but I will answer it again. We do not believe that a referendum now is the right priority. The hon. Gentleman asked me why, and I
	have answered the question. I have answered the question because, actually, I agree with him. This is what he said last year:
	“Austerity can only do so much. Longer term, the better solution is greater competitiveness and economic growth.”
	I think that the priority now, in the Queen’s Speech, should be for the Government to act on economic growth, short-term and long-term. Hanging a sign above our door saying “For the next four years, Britain is closed for business” would be a very, very foolish thing to do.

John Baron: rose—

Edward Balls: I will give way again.

John Baron: I thank the shadow Chancellor for giving way. He is being gracious, if nothing else. However, he still has not answered the question. Why will he not support the concept of trusting the British people to make up their minds on this, say, in 2017? Does he support that position?

Edward Balls: I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s question. For us to join him, or the Prime Minister, in committing ourselves now to a referendum four years ahead would lead to lost investment and lost jobs, and would be the wrong priority for Britain. Our amendment makes it absolutely clear that we disagree with that strategy.
	If there were a treaty change that altered the balance of powers, we would support a referendum. I think it important for us to listen to and understand people’s concerns about Europe, and show that we can reform. I must say to the hon. Gentleman, however, that we will not get the reform that we need by walking out of the room in a flounce, as our Prime Minister did in December 2011. That was one of the worst pieces of statesmanship we have seen for many years.

Andrew Gwynne: In order to be a member of the European economic area outside the European Union, would we not still have to pay a membership fee and accept most of the rules and regulations coming from Brussels? Would we not also lose our seat on the Commission, lose our seats in the European Parliament, and lose our voice on the Council of Ministers?

Edward Balls: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The problem is that the Prime Minister no longer knows whether to agree, disagree, or sit on the fence on that question, which is why we are in such a mess.

Bernard Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman has seen the Prime Minister’s draft Bill. If it became an Act of Parliament requiring a future Government to move an order to set a date for a referendum before 2017, would he do so?

Edward Balls: I have just explained that we do not support the idea of legislating now for a referendum four years ahead, for precisely the reasons that the Engineering Employers Federation, London First and Lord Heseltine have set out and I have set out in our amendment, as have my colleagues. I think that it would destabilise investment and jobs.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Edward Balls: Normally there are plenty of interventions in debates on the economy, jobs and growth, but it seems to be Europe that really gets them going. I give way to the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous).

Andrew Selous: The shadow Chancellor is being very generous in giving way. Will he explain very briefly what he meant when he said hat he did not want his party to be caricatured as the anti-referendum party?

Edward Balls: We are not against the idea of referendums. We proposed the first referendum, in the 1970s. If there were a change in the balance of power in the treaties, we would support a referendum, but it would be wrong to do so now.

Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Balls: I will take one more intervention.

Geraint Davies: As my right hon. Friend knows, today’s figures show that unemployment has risen again. He also knows that the EU provides 50% of our trade. In the event of our securing a free trade agreement between the EU and the United States, alongside bilateral trading agreements between the EU and other countries such as China, what does he think the impact of withdrawal from the EU would be on growth, jobs and trade?

Edward Balls: In 1983, our party supported the idea of withdrawal from the European Community, as it was at the time, but the Conservative party and the Confederation of British Industry agreed that it would cost 2.5 million jobs. Our trade share with Europe has deepened since then, and our labour market is bigger. I think that upwards of 3 million to 3.5 million jobs would be lost now, because we would be turning our face away from those big markets around the world.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Edward Balls: Many other Members want to make speeches, and I have taken rather a lot of interventions already.
	Let me ask a political question that brings us back to the economy. Why have things gone so badly wrong for the Prime Minister and his strategy over the past three, four, five months? I think I can help. I have discovered a column that was written in January by the Chancellor’s cheerleader, the former Member of Parliament, and now Sun columnist, Louise Mensch. Straight after the Prime Minister’s Europe speech, she wrote that
	“the sound we just heard was Cameron shooting Farage’s fox...This speech saw the George Osborne/Michael Gove wing of government triumphing over the Nick Clegg one...Canny Tories will take this and run with it...George Osborne is a tactical genius.”
	There we have it, from a former MP whose one political achievement was to make Corby Labour again. There it is, completely exposed: the Prime Minister is the front man, but the tactical genius—the brains behind the Europe strategy—is the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
	We all remember when the Prime Minister said that his Europe speech represented
	“a tantric approach to policy-making.”
	I have to say that from this side of the House it looks more like sado-masochism—and we all know that the Chancellor likes a bit of that. “'If it’s not hurting, it’s not working” has been his motto for a long time.

Helen Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Edward Balls: Not now.
	I have checked this, and, sadly, it is true. A rather more serious Conservative commentator, Mr Paul Goodman of ConservativeHome, confirmed on his blog back in May of last year that the Chancellor was, indeed, the brains behind the Prime Minister’s referendum stunt. That casts further doubt on the judgment of the Prime Minister. Surely by now he has worked it out. After all, his Back Benchers and the country have worked it out. This is the Chancellor who claimed bringing back Andy Coulson would be a strategic triumph. He is the one who said taking child benefit away from middle-income families would be a masterstroke. He is the one who said that gambling his credibility on our triple A rating was sound economics, and that cutting tax credits and labelling as scroungers 3 million working families—an average of 6,000 in every Tory constituency—was somehow good politics, and that cutting taxes for millionaires would wrong-foot Labour. Surely even the Prime Minister has worked it out by now. This is the man who last year gave us “Omnishambles 1” and “The Budget debacle” and who has now given us “Queen’s Speech 2”, “Omnishambles 2” and the European debacle as well. The fact is the economic plan has failed, the deficit plan has failed and the European plan is failing as well, and when this Government finally collapse in chaos, it will be this Chancellor who gets the blame.

George Osborne: That was certainly an odd speech from the shadow Chancellor. He called me a tactical genius, but those on his side are going around calling him a busted flush, and after the extraordinary 40 minutes of comments we have just heard from him, we can see why. The contrast is with a Government who are building an economy where those who want to work hard and get on are rewarded. The contrast is with a tax system that is being changed to support effort, with the largest ever increase in the personal allowance. The contrast is with a welfare system that is being changed so it always pays to work and benefit bills are being capped so no family gets more from being on benefits and out of work than the average family gets from being in work.
	In this Queen’s Speech we have measures to help those who want to set up a small business and employ people through our employment allowance—which was not mentioned by the shadow Chancellor, but I assume the Labour party will not vote against it. We have measures to help families who dream of home ownership and to help them with their mortgage costs. We have measures for savers, with a Pensions Bill that will provide a generous single-tier pension, and we have measures to help those who want to stay in their homes and avoid the lottery of care costs, with our Care Bill. The only
	reason we can do all these things is because we are clearing up the mess and the things that went so badly wrong in our economy.

Clive Efford: On the issue of fairness, the 13,000 people who earn more than £1 million a year share a combined income of £27.4 billion, and they are going to share in a £1.2 billion payout. How can that be justified and fair?

George Osborne: In every single year under this Government the rich will pay more in tax than in any single year of the Labour Government that the hon. Gentleman consistently supported, and the top rate of tax will be higher than in any single year of the Labour Government he supported. We put up capital gains tax so we avoided the scandal that they presided over—indeed, that the shadow Chancellor presided over—of cleaners paying higher rates of tax than the hedge fund managers they work for. That is what we have done to ensure fairness in our tax system, and that is what we are going to continue to do.

Anas Sarwar: The Chancellor said those who work hard will be rewarded. Can he explain why wages are falling, household budgets are falling and the cost of living is going up? How is that fair?

George Osborne: Let us look at what the Governor of the Bank of England said in his press conference this morning:
	“there is a welcome change in the economic outlook…But this is no time to be complacent—we must press on to ensure a recovery”.
	Yes, there was also the disappointing news that unemployment had gone up, but we also saw that the claimant count and youth unemployment had come down, and the monthly unemployment data were a lot more encouraging than the three-month survey. That is the reality of the current data.

Geraint Davies: Does the Chancellor agree that the key problem is that the debt:GDP ratio will rise from 55% in 2010 to 85% by 2015? The answer to that problem is not just to cut the debt, but to increase GDP. Under Labour, GDP went up by 40% between 1997 and 2008, and the Chancellor inherited a growing economy which is now flatlining because of his policies.

George Osborne: We inherited an 11.5% budget deficit that was adding to our national debt every year, and what the hon. Gentleman and the shadow Chancellor want to do is add further to borrowing. The shadow Chancellor was asked time and again what the cost of the proposals in the amendment the Opposition are asking the House to vote on tonight would be. He would not give that figure, but I will give it for him: it is a £28 billion amendment that would add to borrowing. He comes up with the ludicrous argument that by borrowing more, we can borrow less. That is why he is making so little progress with his economic argument.

Chris Williamson: Will the Chancellor at least acknowledge that when he came into office he inherited a growing economy, and his policies have led to it flatlining?

George Osborne: This is what I have to say about the idea that this Government had some kind of golden economic inheritance from the Labour party: we inherited a situation in which Britain had had the deepest recession since the 1930s, the worst banking crisis in the entirety of British history and the highest budget deficit in the entire peacetime history of this nation. If that is a golden economic inheritance, I would hate to see what the hon. Gentleman thinks a hospital pass looks like.
	The shadow Chancellor mentioned France in his remarks. Exactly a year ago the Labour leader could not contain his excitement about the economic programme being unveiled in France and about the red carpet being rolled out for him at the Elysée palace. “Chers camarades” is how he addressed the Socialist party gathering. He said, “What President Hollande is seeking to do in France, I want to do in Britain.” We do not hear much these days about Labour’s French connection. We still have liberté and egalité, but not much fraternité—although fraternity has never been a great topic for the Miliband family.
	What we did not hear from the shadow Chancellor was his response to the fact that 1.2 million jobs have been created in the private sector, and that although, yes, our deficit is still too high, it has fallen by a third. He says we are borrowing more. We were borrowing £158 billion a year as a country in 2009-10, and this year it is forecast that we will be borrowing £114 billion. That is a £45 billion reduction in borrowing. None of that has been easy to achieve, and every single measure has been opposed by Labour. Not a single measure in its amendment today would help deal with that deficit, but our plan of monetary activism, fiscal responsibility and supply-side reform is delivering progress.

Andrew Selous: On employment, is the Chancellor aware that the United Kingdom’s overall employment rate is growing at almost double that of the United States and is rising faster than that of any other G7 country?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Last year, employment in the UK grew faster than in the US, France, Germany, Japan and the eurozone as a whole. Employment in the UK is now above its pre-recession level. Of course we must go on taking the difficult measures necessary to get our deficit under control, and make sure we support businesses that want to hire people to support the private-sector recovery. The path being offered by the Opposition, however, would lead to complete disaster.

Jim Cunningham: When the Chancellor’s party was in opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) took the credit, before the banks collapsed, for the economic prosperity, claiming he had created it when he was Chancellor. How does the current Chancellor answer that point?

George Osborne: The hon. Gentleman is saying that somehow we have a responsibility for the financial crash or for the problems in the banking industry, but he neatly skips the fact that not only was Labour in office for 13 years, but the shadow Chancellor was the City Minister. He did not have any old job in Government
	—he was the City Minister when Northern Rock was selling those 120% mortgages and the Royal Bank of Scotland was thinking of taking over ABN AMRO. He is the architect of the tripartite regulation, which failed so catastrophically. He is, literally, the last person to have any credibility on this subject.

Nadhim Zahawi: The shadow Chancellor also claimed victory in keeping this country out of the euro. Will the Chancellor remind the House of the cost of the euro preparation unit, and when that unit was closed down?

George Osborne: The euro preparation unit was shut down by this Government in 2010, but the shadow Chancellor does not seem to know what Labour policy is. The Labour party is committed in principle to joining the euro. [Interruption.] The shadow Treasury team do not know what the monetary and currency policy of their own party is—that is absolutely ridiculous.

Charlie Elphicke: The Government have set out a clear and costed economic policy, which they are pursuing. Does the Chancellor share my concern that the Opposition cannot set out their costings, cannot say how much they would borrow and cannot even say whether they would back a referendum? The shadow Chancellor has been completely unable to answer any questions put to him in any straight way whatever.

George Osborne: The shadow Chancellor could not answer the simple question of how much the amendment he is asking us all to vote on this evening would cost. Surely he must reflect a little and realise that each year his appearance in these debates is a source of consolation and comfort to the Government. He must wonder why each year he makes the same arguments for borrowing but there is no improvement in Labour’s economic credibility. He does not seem to understand that the public think that Labour spent too much, wasted their hard-earned money and would do it all again. Does he not feel that he owes it to the British people to apologise for the mistakes he has made and the damage he has inflicted on their living standards? Should he not stand up and say, “I’m sorry, we got it wrong and we won’t do it again”?

Sammy Wilson: The Chancellor’s point, “You can’t borrow more to borrow less”, is a good soundbite, but he does himself a disservice, because some of the borrowing undertaken by this Government has been very effective in reducing the deficit. Only yesterday, we saw 850 new jobs in Allstate in Belfast as a result of investment in the broadband network—that is 850 new taxpayers. Does he not accept that we can borrow, and that by borrowing and putting the money into the right things we can bring the deficit down?

George Osborne: I am all for spending money on vital economic infrastructure, including broadband, and all for trying to switch the budget more from current spending to capital spending. That is precisely what we are engaged in as part of this spending round, but we have to take the hard decisions on where we are going to get our revenue from or take the hard decisions on what we will cut instead. We are making a sensible switch towards capital spending.

George Howarth: Can the Chancellor name a single occasion before the banking problems in 2008 when he and his party argued for tighter regulation of the City?

George Osborne: My party voted against the tripartite arrangement. I do not have the quote with me today—I will send it to the right hon. Gentleman or ensure that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has it for the wind-up—but the shadow Chancellor at the time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), warned in this House that taking prudential regulation away from the Bank of England was a massive mistake and that the Bank of England would not be able to spot the growth of debt bubbles in the economy. Tragically, that is precisely what happened a decade later, and in part the responsibility lies with the people who set up the regulatory system. Is it not extraordinary that Labour Members get up and say that the Conservatives said this or that, yet we are looking at the City Minister at the time? We are looking at the person who, before that, was the chief economic adviser who devised the system and who used to take pleasure in telling everyone that he turned up in Government and gave Eddie George a letter saying that he was no longer in charge of banking regulation—that used to be the shadow Chancellor’s story, but he never talks about it now.

Simon Hughes: I think the country understands that we could not go on as we did, with a completely unregulated City, with bonuses out of control and with unjustifiable profits. The Government’s policy on taxation is fairer now than it ever was under the previous Government. May I ask the Chancellor, however, to address the matter of the housing market, to which he partly referred? In addition to the welcome measures in the Queen’s Speech, will he look into how we can increase the supply of social rented housing and deal with the fact that many non-domiciled people are buying property in this country, not to live in or to rent out, but to keep empty, forcing up prices for everyone, beyond what people can afford?

George Osborne: We are putting in place, right now, new guarantees—the first time that the Treasury has done this—for social housing associations to enable them to build more social homes; in the Budget, we also confirmed support for an additional 30,000 social homes, so we are taking action to help on that front. With our Help to Buy scheme we are also helping those who want to buy their own home in the private market. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that we should do both, which is precisely what we are doing.

Barry Sheerman: As we learned with great interest, there was much in the Queen’s Speech that will affect employment, skills and manufacturing in our country. This is an important part of our country’s future. Can the Chancellor assure me that there is a unit in the Treasury—or a plan for the Treasury—to carry out an independent evaluation of how skills, jobs and manufacturing would be affected if this country left the European Union?

George Osborne: I will come on to talk briefly about reform in the European Union, but I am clear that an unreformed European Union is also doing damage to British competitiveness and British jobs.

Margot James: The estimated cost of the Labour party’s plans is £28 billion. Labour opposes every one of our spending cuts, so does that not imply that it would fund the whole lot by pushing this country’s borrowing back towards £150 billion? Is that why the shadow Chancellor is so reluctant to say what more borrowing he could commit to?

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is right to say that that is the approach of the shadow Chancellor. The right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), who is sadly not in his place, gave the shadow Chancellor some unsolicited advice last week—I think it was unsolicited. He said:
	“Labour’s Treasury team need to get out on the stump now and work even harder. It shouldn’t just be left to Ed and Harriet”—
	Miliband and Harman—
	“to carry the heavy load”
	on shows such as the “World at One”. We could not agree more, because it is fair to say that when the Labour leader appears on the radio—I am not sure how to put this delicately—there is a little confusion about what Labour’s economic policy might be. Ten times he was asked whether borrowing would go up or what his party’s policy was, and he did not reveal it. I will be fair to the shadow Chancellor and say that he is much more straightforward. He has a much clearer message than his leader: “Vote Labour and borrowing will go up. Vote Labour and welfare bills will rise.” Vote Labour and he will do it all again. It is not just the right hon. Member for Neath who wants to see the shadow Chancellor on the media more—we want to see him on the media much more.

Helen Goodman: Yesterday, I met the chairman of Fujitsu, which has just put £800 million into the British economy. He told me that his company had done so only because this country is in the European Union. He was, however, rather disappointed not to have had a reply from the Prime Minister after writing to him with that news. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer not understand that his Government should be more interested in providing stability for business than in pleasing their own Back Benchers?

George Osborne: It is very good news that Fujitsu is choosing to employ in the United Kingdom. I do not see the hon. Lady’s intervention as a hostile one that has put me on the back foot; what am I supposed to do about the fact that international companies are choosing the United Kingdom as the place to invest and create jobs? That is a tough one!
	I have to admit that the hon. Lady has a point, but let me come on to say something about the change that is required, including the change in the European Union, which of course is a subject of debate today.
	It is true that for much of my political life and, I suspect, the political life of many in the House, the concerns about Europe have primarily been ones of sovereignty and constitutional power—not exclusively, but those have been the most dominant. Those concerns have not disappeared, but they have been complemented by economic concerns, and those economic concerns have grown. There is concern that the European prescription of high taxes, expensive social costs and unaffordable welfare is slowly strangling the European economy. There are concerns from business that directive after
	directive, regulation after regulation load costs on European companies, especially small firms, and cripple their ability to compete against new challengers around the world.
	The crisis in the eurozone has created an immediate institutional challenge for the UK: as 17 member states attempt to take steps to save their monetary union, how can we change the EU to protect our interests and make it work for us? But the crisis has only accelerated an economic argument that was coming anyway: is Britain’s membership of the European Union right for Britain’s economic future? My answer, like the Prime Minister’s, is that if we can achieve real change in Europe and our relationship with the EU, then yes, it is. That is the renegotiation that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister seeks—a Europe that is more globally competitive and more flexible, a Europe that creates jobs and offers its people prosperity and accountability.

Peter Bone: Is not the Chancellor exactly right? Is not his view shared by those on the Conservative Benches? I am sure the Chancellor is forced by coalition politics not to be able to vote for the amendment, but if he were free from that restraint, would he back the Prime Minister’s policy by voting for the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron)?

George Osborne: This is a coalition Government with a coalition Queen’s Speech, which contains things such as the single-tier pension, the Care Bill and the help for small employers, which will make a real difference to people across the country. Our view is that the best route to achieving what I know my hon. Friend wants to achieve is by legislating in this House. As the Prime Minister said in his January speech, we now have draft legislation for an in/out referendum on the EU. We have done it in good time for this Session’s ballot for private Members’ Bills. It is now open to any hon. Members who do well in that ballot to adopt the draft Bill that we published yesterday and take it forward as the basis for legislation. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we will do everything we can to make it law.

Pat McFadden: A moment or two ago the Chancellor said that if the renegotiation that the Prime Minister has set out on produced fundamental change, he would vote to stay in the EU. What will his position be if the renegotiation does not produce much change? That is what happened the last time this was tried in the 1970s. Not much change is not exactly an unlikely prospect, given the attitude of other European member states so far to the Government’s stance.

George Osborne: I do not think the Prime Minister will fail in his negotiating effort. I do not think the Conservative party will fail in its negotiating effort with the European Union. Do Members know why I do not think we will fail in that effort? The Prime Minister pulled us out of the eurozone bail-outs when everyone said that was impossible. The Prime Minister delivered a cut in the European budget when everyone said that was unachievable. The Prime Minister vetoed a bad treaty when people said that was unprecedented. I am confident we can achieve that new settlement.
	There is another reason why I am confident we can achieve that settlement. I see around the table in Europe—around the ECOFIN table, where I was yesterday— many countries as concerned as we are about the future of jobs and investment on the European continent, people who know that the EU is not working as currently arranged.

Several hon. Members: rose—

George Osborne: I will give way to the Scottish nationalists in a moment.
	It was not this Chancellor but the German Chancellor who said the other day:
	“If Europe today accounts for just over 7% of the world’s population, produces around 25% of global GDP and has to finance 50% of global social spending, then it’s obvious that it will have to work very hard to maintain its prosperity and way of life.”
	That was the leader of Germany speaking. I believe that there are out there other people who also seek change, but above all, for the United Kingdom, because of the changes happening in the eurozone, we need a new settlement and I am confident that the Prime Minister will deliver it.

Pete Wishart: The Chancellor of the Exchequer and I know that the UK is halfway out of the European Union. Does he agree that the best way for the Scottish people to remain within the European Union is to vote yes in the referendum next year?

George Osborne: As our Scotland analysis papers show, Scotland would have to apply to join the European Union as it became a new state. I am glad the Scottish National party is taking part in this debate on economic policy. Perhaps we will get a clearer view from SNP Members, after the shambles of the past three weeks, of what their policy is on the currency that Scotland would use, should Scotland vote to leave the Union. We have not had a clear answer. Some members of the SNP have said that Scotland should have its own currency, others have said that Scotland should join the euro, and still others have said that they would negotiate a monetary union with all of us in order to keep the pound. There is complete confusion in the SNP ranks and until they have a clear answer to that, they will not be listened to on much else.

Bernard Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government are committed to what one might call a policy of negotiate and decide, although that has a familiar ring to it? Would it not help the clarity of this debate if the Government set out exactly what they intend to negotiate on? That has not been clear from anything they have so far said.

George Osborne: As my hon. Friend knows, and he takes a close interest in these matters, this is the beginning of a process of setting out what we want to achieve in a renegotiation, and in a conversation about that. Of course, we will then seek to achieve that renegotiation, achieve that new settlement—I am confident that after the election the Prime Minister and a Conservative Government will be able to achieve that—and put it to the British people in a referendum.

Charlie Elphicke: One of the things my hon. Friend drew attention to was the problems facing our European neighbours and the challenges posed by their welfare states. Our action in getting on top of the problems of welfare, reforming welfare and making sure that work pays is key to dealing with our place in the world and making this country competitive. I draw a distinction between that and the attitude of the Labour party, which has opposed every welfare reform proposed by this Government.

George Osborne: My hon. Friend is right. There was a ludicrous remark—I do not know whether anyone noticed it—from the shadow Chancellor when he said that Labour supports tough welfare reform. Labour Members have voted against every single welfare proposal put to the House. The shadow Chancellor thinks the benefits cap is “too low” and that it is not set at the right level at £26,000. That is the problem. Any view of Britain, and any view of western nations, is that they need to do more to constrain the growth of entitlement spending and more to make sure that welfare pays, and to spend the money that they save on things such as infrastructure in Northern Ireland, broadband, high-speed trains and the Crossrail project under London—the vital economic infrastructure that our country needs.

Several hon. Members: rose—

George Osborne: I will give way to Labour Members in a moment if they can help me answer this question. What on earth is the policy of the Labour party towards an in/out referendum on Europe? The shadow Chancellor was asked that again and again. The question is this: do the Opposition rule out offering an in/out referendum at the next general election—yes or no? What is the answer?

Chris Williamson: Perhaps the Chancellor can answer this question. Toyota, just down the road from my constituency and the biggest inward investment in western Europe, came to Derbyshire because it gave access to the European market. Does the Chancellor think that, if an in/out referendum was hanging over this country and Toyota was thinking about investing now, it would take that decision to invest in Derbyshire, or would it take its investment somewhere else inside the EU?

George Osborne: A lot of those big Japanese car plants came to Britain under a Conservative Government who were offering them a competitive place to do business in the world. I am pleased to say that under this coalition Government we now export more cars than we import for the first time since the mid-1970s, and we will go on having a successful car industry because we have specific policies to back the car sector, but above all because we have cut corporation tax and made this a competitive place in which to do business.

Several hon. Members: rose—

George Osborne: I will give way to whichever Labour MP can answer this question: do the Labour party rule out an in/out referendum on Europe?

Andy Sawford: It is six months to the day since the voters of Corby in east Northamptonshire delivered a damning verdict on the Government. The key issues in that by-election were not the preoccupations of the right wingers in the Chancellor’s
	Tory party, but jobs and health care in this country. But since the Chancellor is so keen to ask us questions, will he answer the question that the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) answered very clearly, which is: if there were an in/out referendum tomorrow, how would the Chancellor vote?

George Osborne: The policy is this: change the European Union, seek a new settlement, then put that to the British people in a referendum. This debate has revealed that Labour cannot answer the simple question: does it rule out offering an in/out referendum before the next general election? If it cannot answer that question, it will not be listened to on this subject any more, and people will be very, very clear that the only way to get an in/out referendum on Europe is to have a Conservative Government after the next election, so people should vote Conservative in that election and make sure that they have their say.

Nadhim Zahawi: Does the Chancellor not agree that the double-speak we heard from the shadow Chancellor and his reluctance to trust the British people feed the people’s mistrust in politics?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and I am sure that we are not implying any misleading in this Chamber by any hon. Member.

Nadhim Zahawi: Double-speak is not misleading.

Dawn Primarolo: I think it implies something. [Interruption.] I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman did not argue with me, particularly if he wants to be called in this debate. That is a very dangerous route to take. All hon. Members would do well to moderate their language and participation in the debate to a more reasonable level.

George Osborne: Let me conclude, because I am conscious—

Edward Balls: Will the Chancellor give way?

George Osborne: Of course I will give way.

Edward Balls: rose—

George Osborne: Hold on. I have not given way yet. I will give way to any Labour Member who can answer the question: do they rule out an in/out referendum before the next general election? Yes or no?

Edward Balls: To avoid any risk of double-speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, in order to make sure that we have the full facts before us, the Chancellor claimed that he was tackling the welfare bill—[Interruption.] No, no double-speak. Let us be absolutely clear that between 2010-11 and 2012-13, expenditure on benefits has gone up, because of higher unemployment, inflation and other things, by £8.1 billion. To avoid double-speak, will the Chancellor confirm that welfare spending is up by £8 billion in the last two years?

George Osborne: We have spent more on pensions, and we are proud that we have done so, and we have a triple lock on pensions and pensioners last year got the biggest
	ever increase in the state pension. As for other areas of the welfare state, we have cut welfare entitlements by £19 billion a year.
	Let me conclude, because there is a five-minute limit on Back-Benchers’ contributions. We have spoken about Europe, but many of the economic challenges that we face remain at home. We spoke about banking regulation, and an important part of the legislative programme this year is the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, which is a carry-over Bill. We are making the changes necessary to fix our banking system, ring-fence our retail banks and make sure that we deal with the too-big-to-fail problem. We also have legislation to support small businesses. It will not be the most controversial Bill, because I suspect that the Labour party will not dare to oppose it, but it will be of enormous help to our constituents and to many businesses throughout the country. Our new employment allowance will cut the tax on jobs—

Christopher Leslie: Not for another year.

George Osborne: We have to get the legislation because we need a national insurance Bill, which is what—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman had 13 years to do something for small businesses, and the only idea he came up with was to put up the small companies’ tax rate.
	From next April, every business and every charity will have their employer national insurance contributions bill cut by £2,000 a year. It means that a business will be able to employ four adults on the minimum wage without paying any employer NICs at all. I know that the shadow Chancellor does not want to hear it, because his policy was to put taxes up on jobs. That is what he fought the general election on, and that is what he still talks about when people listen to him in his interviews. That is the point. The Opposition offer more borrowing; we are reducing the deficit. They want to increase the size of government; we want it reduced. They penalise enterprise and wealth creation; we support it. They would put a tax on jobs; we are abolishing it. While they would repeat all the mistakes of the past, we are engaging in the great economic challenges of the future. We are building an economy that will enable Britain to compete and succeed in the world. We are building an economy that helps people who want to work hard and get on. I commend the Queen’s Speech to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I remind hon. Members that there is now a five-minute limit on contributions from Back Benchers. I ask that interventions are brief and relevant, and those waiting to speak might wish to be a little conservative, or however one might like to put it, and not make interventions that would reduce the time available to them later in the debate.

Margaret Beckett: The best that can be said about this Queen’s Speech is that it is inadequate on the economy. A pattern is emerging in the way the Government weigh the national interests on
	the one hand against the interests of the Conservative party on the other. From the outset, the Chancellor claimed that we had to cut faster and deeper than Labour had proposed, because only that level of austerity would reduce the deficit. It was clear then that the speed and depth of the proposed cuts were dictated by a political goal—a massive early deficit reduction speedily followed by economic success well before the next election.
	The Chancellor was warned then that the scale and pace of that austerity risked the fragile growth re-established before the election, but for potential political gain he was ready to take a huge gamble with our economy. To that gamble he added self-inflicted wounds. He constantly told the British people, again for political reasons, that we were on the brink of bankruptcy, and so almost destroyed confidence. He made a fetish of our triple A credit rating, and then he lost it. He has hit our economy with a double whammy—greater austerity and, as a direct result, higher, not lower, borrowing.
	There are three ways to cut the deficit: growth, taxation and spending cuts. The Chancellor made it clear from the beginning that he preferred spending cuts to tax increases, though his VAT increase hit everyone. Now he talks only about either tax or spending; he never mentions growth, because he does not have any. Meanwhile, other developed countries that have not followed his lead are growing while we are not.
	The Chancellor is neglecting the opportunity of green growth. Potential first-mover advantages in green technologies are, just, still to be had, and with them new high-skill, high-value-added jobs, but unless the Treasury allows more ambition, those jobs will be elsewhere, not in this country. Meanwhile, his cuts increasingly come at the expense of the most vulnerable, justified by the rhetoric of scroungers and strivers. He justifies the bedroom tax as encouraging people to downsize, but the Government must have known that for many people there is nowhere to downsize to, so it is just a cut. If we cannot afford not to cut that benefit, as he alleges, we cannot afford to cut taxes for millionaires in the same week.
	With the EU referendum omnishambles, what began as a gamble with our economy in the interests of the Conservative party has become the disregard of our economic interests. The Conservative party claims to be the party of business, but a key hate of business is prolonged economic uncertainty. Now we are telling inward investors, “We might leave the EU, but we’ll let you know in four years’ time.” Japanese, American and European inward investors all make it clear that they are in the UK because the UK is in the EU. Millions of jobs are at stake. A semi-detached status, such as that of Switzerland and Norway, means being bound by EU decisions without having a voice. The voice we have now is continually being weakened by the continued uncertainty about our membership and whether the Government even support it.
	It is crystal clear to everyone, in this country and outside, that that disregard of our national interest has nothing to do with cool calculation of how that interest is to be served and everything to do with the interests of the Conservative party. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor are running scared—scared of the UK Independence party and scared of their own Back Benchers. As has been said already today, they are in office but not in power.

John Baron: I would like to thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for selecting the amendment standing in my name and those of other hon. Members, and I would like to thank those Members who have signed it for their unwavering support. There can be no doubt that the nature of our relationship with the EU is of fundamental importance to this country, but the EU has changed since we first joined, and it is still changing. “More Europe” is the cry, and “More political and economic harmonisation” is the shout, but that is not why we joined.

James Clappison: Does it not follow that the time for the British people to be given their say is long overdue and that we should give them every assurance that they should have that say?

John Baron: I completely agree. I think that the political system has denied the electorate their say for far too long and that Parliament needs to understand that. That is why some of us on the Conservative Benches have been campaigning for some time for a referendum in the next Parliament. I am pleased to say that the Prime Minister deserved credit for listening. In January he became the first major party leader to offer the country a referendum in 2017. But we, as a group on these Benches, have also long argued that our commitment must be both credible and believable. It is credible because the referendum in 2017 has an “out” option, but it is not yet believable.
	The British electorate, quite understandably, are deeply sceptical of any politicians making promises about matters European, particularly EU referendums. Too many promises have been broken in the past. They remember Tony Blair’s broken promises about a referendum on the EU constitution, which never materialised. They are constantly reminded about Liberal literature promising an in/out referendum, which never materialised, even when they came to power. That is why we on these Benches have also campaigned for legislation in this Parliament for a referendum in the next, not because we do not trust the Prime Minister, but because the electorate do not trust politicians generally. I would argue that we as a party are more united on this issue than we have been for a generation. We have all signed up to the referendum in 2017; what we disagree on is the best way of convincing the electorate of the seriousness of our intent.

Peter Bone: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that 2017 is the back-stop, the latest date for the in/out referendum, and that it might in fact be earlier?

John Baron: It could well be earlier, but I am very content having a referendum in the next Parliament, because that will give time to renegotiate. However, that option does exist.
	That is why legislation is more believable than election manifesto promises, too many of which have been broken in the past. That is why I very much welcome the party’s promise to support a private Member’s Bill, something that was not on offer when I asked a week ago. I also support the publication of the draft Bill yesterday. It just goes to show that a week can indeed be a long time in politics. However, the problem with a private Member’s
	Bill is that it is the second best option. We all know that a determined minority can block it by letting it run out of time. The Bill will fail, as so many others do, on a soggy Friday afternoon when no one notices.
	That is why I urge the Prime Minister—I am pleased to see that the Chancellor is still in his place—to support the amendment. It provides him with a golden opportunity. If we were to win, that would provide him with the mandate to try to introduce legislation through the normal channels, which would stand a far better chance of succeeding. He should seize the moment. He could claim, quite rightly, that the situation was not of his making and blame me or us as a group. It would therefore be outside the confines of the coalition agreement. I must say to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that the Liberals would be very hard pressed indeed to refuse to give time, given that Parliament would have expressed its view and that of the electorate. Let the media then knock at the Liberals’ door to ask questions.
	The argument that there is no certainty that we would win such legislation is weak. There is no downside in trying. We may well win. Some MPs on other Benches—honourable and principled Members—support the concept. Even if we fail, we will have tried. On a matter of this importance, political transparency is paramount, and the electorate could then take note.
	As a group on these Benches, I hope that we have helped in a small way to move the party closer to the electorate on this issue, but it is more important than party politics. I encourage other Members to do likewise within their own parties. Were the amendment to pass tonight, we as a Parliament would be opening the door to the possibility of introducing legislation that would stand a far better chance of succeeding. It would take a majority to defeat that legislation, rather than the determined minority it takes to defeat a private Member’s Bill. I therefore urge Members across the House to support it. I urge my own Front Benchers to support it. I urge the doubters to put aside their doubts and support it.
	For too long the electorate have been unable to express their opinion on the changing nature of our relationship with the EU. The political establishment have essentially closed ranks over the past 30 years and denied the electorate a choice. We now have a golden opportunity to right that wrong. We should be bold of heart, seize the moment and do what is right by the electorate, and indeed by the country. I therefore intend to move the amendment.

George Howarth: I will first say a few words about employment, particularly in the light of statistics released today, and then a few words about Europe. The employment situation in the UK and in my constituency is frankly depressing, and the figures released today by the Office for National Statistics emphasise that. Nationally, 3.8% of those aged 16 to 64 are on jobseeker’s allowance. Today in Knowsley the number of JSA claimants is 4,245, which equates to 6.3% of Knowsley residents, well above the national rate. Similarly, the JSA count for those aged 18 to 24 is 7.2%, whereas in Knowsley it is 13.2%. In my view, therefore, there is no room for complacency.
	To be frank, many of the existing opportunities do not reflect the expectations of an ambitious country. Practices such as zero-hour contracts and the use by many high-profile companies of unpaid internships and agency work amount in many cases to systematic exploitation, particularly of young people.
	There is growing concern about what is often referred to as the race to the bottom. In The Times a few days ago, the noble Lord Sainsbury of Turville was reported as arguing for a more progressive form of capitalism that recognises social justice and discussing the role that institutions could play in bringing it about. He also rejected the neo-liberal consensus of the past several decades.
	Frances O’Grady, the recently appointed general secretary of the TUC, has mentioned the Prime Minister’s ambitions to erode workers’ rights. She said:
	“'The Prime Minister wants to ‘repatriate’ those rights, and not because he thinks he can improve them”,
	but because he
	“wants to make it easier for bad employers to undercut good ones”.
	Moreover, on the question of employment rights, Jon Cridland, the director general of the CBI, has said that the Prime Minister’s proposals would not be his starting point in any negotiation. It is clear that there is an emerging consensus that we should be discussing the quality of employment and the opportunities for people, rather than taking away the rights and privileges they already enjoy.
	I am a Eurosceptic compared with many on the Labour Benches. I voted against the Maastricht treaty, because it removed the social contract. I am in favour of renegotiating the terms of our EU membership and think there should be a referendum at some point. It is not healthy for our democracy that the relationship between the political classes and the country has eroded to the extent that it has.
	Where I part company with the Prime Minister, however, is on the sort of Europe that he wants to renegotiate, which is entirely different from the sort of Europe that I want to be a part of. I believe firmly that there is a case for renegotiation and that it should be followed by a referendum, but I certainly do not agree with the sort of Europe that the Prime Minister wants to bring about.

Peter Bone: The right hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech and I understand entirely his position, but will he consider voting for amendment (b)? It does not specify a particular Bill; it just regrets that there is no EU referendum Bill in the Queen’s Speech.

George Howarth: No, and the reason why I am not prepared to do that is because the hon. Gentleman and the amendment anticipate a different kind of renegotiation from one that I would support. I have given serious thought to supporting the amendment, but it is possible on occasion to agree with the words of an amendment while not necessarily agreeing with the sentiment behind it. I do not want to be associated with a proposal to renegotiate Britain’s involvement in Europe that differs from how I would want it to be conducted. The difference between me and the hon. Gentleman and others who support the amendment is not necessarily over its wording, but over the intention behind it, which I do not want to be associated with.
	I hope that in the coming years we will see a different arrangement between Europe and the United Kingdom. I also hope that we can improve people’s working lives and make work pay for a lot more people, particularly young people. I do not believe that that is the direction that this Government want to take, and I hope that when there is a change of Government we will be able to make the changes that I want to see.

Bob Russell: Successive Governments have spoken of localism and sustainable communities, but the reality has not matched the rhetoric in many respects. That is particularly true with regard to the loss of post offices and neighbourhood and village shops, whereby Government policies over the past 30 years have hastened their decline, rather than helped sustain them to the overall benefit of society and the communities that lose them.
	Nowhere is Government failure more obvious than in the closure of thousands of neighbourhood and village public houses—the traditional English “local”—and the rise of mega-drinking establishments with wall-to-wall boozing and round-the-clock easy availability of alcohol, aligned with below-cost-price special offers in supermarkets, which has fuelled an explosion in alcohol-related incidents in town and city centres, making many people wary of going to them in the evenings and putting serious extra pressure on our emergency services, including clogging hospital accident and emergency departments.
	There is also worrying evidence from health professionals of an increase in drink-related conditions and that this self-inflicted rise in alcohol-induced illnesses is occurring in increasing numbers of young people. All this adds yet further burdens on the national health service and it also, of course, leads to devastation for the individuals concerned and their families. It is therefore a huge disappointment that we have not been presented with a Bill to address the failure of the past 30 years.
	Early-day motion 57 supports a campaign group—a coalition of organisations—known as Fair Deal for Your Local, which is calling, as its name suggests, for a fair deal for local public houses. The group comprises the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business, the Campaign for Real Ale, Fair Pint, Licensees Supporting Licensees, Justice for Licensees, Licensees Unite, the Guild of Master Victuallers and the Pubs Advisory Service. That is a worthy list of organisations whose views both the coalition and the Opposition should listen to.
	The campaign’s emphasis is on a much-needed reform of the tied model operated by large public owning companies, or pubcos as they are commonly called. Pubcos take more than is fair or sustainable from the sales of drinks, which makes it difficult or impossible for many licensees to make a living. This results in the failure, on a huge scale, of pubs up and down the country, with a closure rate of 20 or more a week and the pubcos selling them as though they were asset-stripping property developers rather than custodians of our nation’s rich social heritage.
	The following statement could easily be adapted as a Bill:
	“The Fair Deal for Your Local campaign believes that the way to ensure a fair deal for pubs—and to deliver the Government’s clear commitment—is to include in the statutory code an option
	for tied publicans to only pay a fair, independently assessed market rent to the pub owning company—a ‘market rent only’ option.”
	It is estimated that this would bring down the cost of a pint in pubco-owned pubs—around a third of all British public houses—allowing many pubs to survive and thrive. It would also lead to fairer access to public houses for small brewers, which would boost their businesses and increase choice at the bar. I would have thought that the coalition welcomed such measures. It must be stressed that all family brewers would be excluded, because the code would apply only to companies that own more than 500 pubs. This relates to pubco public houses, but legislative help would also benefit other neighbourhood public houses.
	In commending the Fair Deal for Your Local campaign, I congratulate the excellent work of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), who tabled early-day motion 57. I also remind the House of what I have said on this subject in previous debates. In November I said:
	“We need to amend the tax levy on beer sold in our traditional public houses. We should have a tax-neutral approach to keep the Treasury happy and bring huge social benefits, including job retention and creation, rather than there being the loss of jobs that we continue to witness in the sector.
	Most publicans of neighbourhood and village public houses run responsible establishments. Their customers should be rewarded, not financially penalised because of the irresponsible marketing carried out by supermarkets and mega-drinking establishments.”—[Official Report, 1 November 2012; Vol. 552, c. 429.]
	I returned to this theme in the Budget debate in March, when I observed that
	“there are mixed messages on alcohol tax and the coalition Government’s desire to tackle binge drinking and improve the health of the nation.”
	I described the confusion caused by having a debate on whether there should be minimum unit pricing alcohol when the Chancellor was knocking 1p off the price of a pint of beer, and added:
	“We need a variable price structure to help traditional, community and village public houses, which would fit well with the coalition Government’s localism agenda and the last Government’s sustainable communities legislation.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 1362.]
	Time prevents me from mentioning other Bills that I would have liked to be included, such as one on building council houses. The lack of council house building over the past 30 years under the policies of the Tory Governments led by Thatcher, Major and Blair has led to a housing crisis.
	Unlike some, I will loyally support the Queen’s Speech this evening.

Tom Clarke: As always, I listened carefully to the Queen’s Speech with the intention of examining how the new measures would affect my constituents. I was also looking for measures that would ease the strain on the families in my constituency who are worried about unemployment and the rising cost of living. I was sadly and expectedly disappointed.
	Before listing my concerns, I will place on the record a couple of observations on how we got into the deep economic difficulty that is causing desperate hardship for many families in my constituency. The fundamental error of this stagnant coalition Government was to assume that they could clear the deficit in four years. Their plan was to use the final year in office to hand out sweeteners to the electorate, who would be so overwhelmingly grateful that they would elect a Conservative majority.
	Dealing with the deficit is the defining issue facing this country. However, that should never have been conditional on or linked to the outcome of the next election. That was a political fix that was destined to fail. Everybody could see that it was politically too far-fetched, except for the opportunistic Liberal Democrats who disregarded their electoral mandate and traded their principles for government office.
	The UK economy is 9% smaller today than was expected when this stagnant Government took over. In 2009-10, the deficit was £159 billion. It is now forecast to be down to £121 billion. However, the public debt overall is rising from £795.5 billion to a predicted £1.1 trillion.
	On any reasonable analysis of our economic situation, two significant themes scream out loud and clear. The first is the continual anaemic economic performance and the second is our ability to pay off the debt, which is becoming increasingly strained as a consequence of the first point. While those two heads travel in opposite directions, our economy will never recover. The policies simply have to change. It is time that this stagnant Government chose to put the national interest first and their party political interests second.
	Ordinary hard-working people and their families are struggling. Rents and mortgages have to be paid, as do ever-increasing energy and water bills. Families who spent £600 a month to cover those costs in 2005 now spend more than £800 a month. We have record fuel prices and record amounts of people in fuel poverty. We have 1 million young people out of work and left behind. Lending to businesses is continuing to fall. We have soaring unemployment. We have a Chancellor who has to borrow £245 billion more than he planned, who has failed his own economic test of retaining our triple A credit rating and who, over the course of this Parliament, will have delivered growth of a mere 1.7%. Ordinary working people are paying the price of this out-of-touch Government’s economic stagnation.

Jim Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the methods that the Government are using to make ordinary people pay for their incompetence is the bedroom tax?

Tom Clarke: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. While we witness the introduction of the second home subsidy, the effects of the bedroom tax are being seen in my constituency, where an estimated 2,128 individuals will be affected, two-thirds of whom are believed to have disabilities. Citizens Advice Scotland has revealed that nearly 800 victims of the welfare axe are desperately seeking its support. Welfare recipients are an easy target, but we should not point the finger too quickly because no job is safe in this economy.
	To get our economy moving again, we need investment—investment for jobs, investment for the future and investment in the ordinary hard-working people of our country. We have been treated to a more-of-the-same economic plan, with no change on anything of importance. The Government are cutting taxes for millionaires while cutting support for our economy. Led by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, this stagnant Cabinet of out-of-touch, upper-class millionaires has run out of ideas and run out of steam, while our country is running out of time. What a way to run Britain.

Richard Ottaway: As a secondary modern schoolboy, I am always pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke).
	In the regrettable absence of a debate on foreign affairs, I will use today’s theme to focus on the EU’s rule in economic growth. The British economy is not an isolated beast. It is part of a global economy and, in particular, a European economy focused on the EU. That European economy needs reform, but we need to be part of it.
	Global economic success is to be found in single markets around the world. We should look at the economic growth in Brazil, Russia, India, China and the USA. What do those countries have in common? They are all single markets. The EU single market, an invention of Margaret Thatcher, which stretches from Athens to Oslo, is the largest single market in the world. We in the UK are 60 million in a world of more than 7 billion—less than 1%. Do we want to face the global markets alone or as a member of a trading bloc that represents 500 million people?
	What is the alternative? Perhaps we could be outside the EU, negotiating our own terms of trade. Perhaps we could be an independent sovereign state, calling the shots on our own terms like Norway and Switzerland. Those propositions may sound attractive, but I disagree with the Secretary of State for Education, who says that life outside the EU would be “perfectly tolerable”. Norway and Switzerland do not call the shots. They pay billions every year for access to the single market and Switzerland has been forced into renegotiation.
	We would have to renegotiate our own free trade agreements. The holy grail of trade agreements is an EU-US deal. We would look pretty dumb if we were leaving the EU just as it was signing up to such a trade agreement. Imagine the impact on our car industry, which exports five out of every six cars made in the UK, if it had to pay the EU import tariff on cars of 9.6%. Where would a foreign car manufacturer invest, faced with that situation?

Bernard Jenkin: The United Kingdom has a trade deficit with the other 26 EU member states of £70 billion. I cannot imagine that the EU would want to cut itself off from the British market by getting into a trade war with the United Kingdom. May I also point out that we export more to the rest of the world than to the EU? The EU is declining in relative terms, whereas markets in the rest of the world are expanding. Surely we are a
	global trading nation, not just a regional trading nation, and that does not require us to be a member of the single market.

Richard Ottaway: We can all trade statistics on who trades what with whom, but about 50% of our exports are to the European Union. We export four times as much to the EU as to the United States.

Bernard Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Richard Ottaway: I will not give way.
	We sell more to Sweden, which has a population of 9 million, than to India, which has a population of 1.1 billion. That is the truth of the matter.

Bernard Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Richard Ottaway: I am not giving way.
	The EU is not going to let us set up an offshore free trade island like Hong Kong, undercutting its industries. We will have to pay for access to the single market. The EU will dictate the terms of trade, and we will still be under the thumb of Brussels. I say to my hon. Friend that that is not gaining sovereignty, it is losing it. The plan to impose an EU-wide financial transaction tax is just a warning shot. As a member of the EU, we can go to the European Court of Justice and challenge it. Outside the EU, it would simply be imposed and we would just pay the tax.
	I say to the Economic Secretary that his policy on the eurozone is spot-on. Supporting policies that will stabilise the single currency area and encouraging growth through integration is exactly the right approach. At the same time, we expect the Treasury to keep a watchful eye on the national interest in the single market. A good example of that is the agreement on the single supervisory mechanism in the banking union, which shows the clout that we still carry in the EU and how we protect our position inside the single market but outside the eurozone. He should continue with that approach. That example also illustrates how far we have come in building alliances inside the European Union since the veto in December 2011. Inside, we simply have more strength.
	No one denies that the EU needs reform, and I am no great Europhile on this. [Interruption.] May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) that that sort of contemptuous laugh does no good to the debate whatever? No one denies that the EU needs reform. Primarily, it has to choose between being a social market economy and being something tougher. In his Bloomberg speech, the Prime Minister set out a course of action that recognises British Euroscepticism but keeps us at the table, using our influence. Within the EU, the UK will continue to thrive as a major player on the world stage and our economy will be stronger, but outside, I believe that the future will be bleak.

Stewart Hosie: It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. This Queen’s Speech is important, sandwiched as it is between the Budget and Red Book, which we already have, and the forthcoming spending review, the details of which we do not have but
	which still casts a shadow over the potential for growth and recovery in the UK. The Prime Minister mentioned growth in his speech on the opening day of the debate, stating that the measures in the Gracious Speech would “grow the economy”. He also said that they would
	“deliver a better future for our children…win the global race”—[Official Report, 8 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 28.]
	and “cut the deficit”. Given the austerity programme so far, it looks like it will lead to 300,000 more children being in poverty by the end of next year, and the forecasts are that there will be up to 4 million children in poverty in a few years’ time. It is difficult to see how any of the measures in the Queen’s Speech can possibly live up to the billing that the Prime Minister gave them.
	Given that the balance of trade has been in deficit to the tune of more than £100 billion for the past two years, and that the gap in the total balance of trade has risen by more than £10 billion in the past year, it is difficult to see how anything in the Queen’s Speech can live up to the Prime Minister’s description and do anything to allow us to “win the global race”, whatever that means.
	Bringing the deficit down was another of the Prime Minister’s claims, but as the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) said, net borrowing was forecast at £92 billion but ended up being £121 billion. The cumulative deficit—the net debt—was forecast to rise to about 92% of GDP in a couple of years, but it is now forecast to hit more than 100% of GDP and about £1.6 trillion. There is a great deal of Government rhetoric about what the measures in the Queen’s Speech are supposed to do, but very little real evidence.
	However, it is not as though the Queen’s Speech contained no growth measures. There was one potentially significant one—the national insurance employment allowance. However, that was not altogether new. It was in the Red Book and budgeted to cost the Government £1.3 billion next year. It is welcome, but because the impact of the Budget policy decisions is to be fiscally neutral over the five years from 2013-14, the overall impact on economic growth of that one meaningful measure will be muted to say the least. It is worse than that, because any beneficial effect on growth of that sensible policy will be wiped out entirely by the additional cuts to expenditure that are anticipated in the forthcoming spending review.

Charlie Elphicke: If Scotland became independent, which currency would it use?

Stewart Hosie: It would use sterling. We have answered that question many times. We are speaking about the UK Government’s Queen’s Speech and how their programme for the Session will fail to deliver growth not just for Scotland but for everybody throughout the UK.
	Let us be clear that the impact of the one good thing in the Queen’s Speech, the employment allowance, will be wiped out entirely if the economy is supposed to absorb the anticipated £11.5 billion of new cuts. That is the figure most commonly used for what is likely to be in the spending review. That will take the UK to discretionary consolidation—tax rises and cuts—somewhere
	in excess of £155 billion a year, every year, from 2015-16 onwards. Indeed, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has helpfully provided some information stating that it believes the real level of discretionary consolidation could reach £172 billion a year by 2017-18.
	The Government plan to cut £11.5 billion, in addition to the cuts so far. To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), that will be added to the 8.7% real-terms departmental expenditure limit cuts and 25% capital DEL cuts in Scotland. It seems extraordinary that when we are looking for real growth, the Government seriously propose stripping consumption out of the economy to the extent of about 8% of GDP and putting an additional £11.5 billion on top of the £140 billion or so of discretionary consolidation that is already planned, and replacing it with only a single sensible measure, the employment allowance.
	What the Government are trying to do is not doable. They are trying to cut their way to growth, which cannot be done. They are ignoring all the evidence that austerity is hurting across the board, and I urge them even at this late stage to think again about their plan. They should rethink not just the contents of the Queen’s Speech or what we are likely to see in the spending review in June but the measures that we have already had in this and previous Budgets. Those measures will lead, as Olivier Blanchard from the International Monetary Fund has said, to the Government “playing with fire” if they allow the economic stagnation to continue.

Bernard Jenkin: When I received, somewhat to my surprise, a telephone call from my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), inviting me to add my name to an amendment that regretted the absence of an item in the Queen’s Speech, I confess I was somewhat astonished. I think it a mark of the enormous shift in opinion that is taking place on what has for decades been a matter of fundamental consensus in British politics, that we find ourselves straining the conventions and normal behaviour, and even the Standing Orders of the House, to accommodate this debate. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) that I utterly respect the sincerity of his views, and I was expressing no more than frustration that he would not allow me a spare minute of his time to explain the statistics on which I think this fundamental debate should be based.
	I agree with the terms of the amendment and will support it, although I might not have tabled it myself. I doubt that some of the noise and discord around this issue has impressed those who failed to support us in the elections two weeks ago, reflecting a certain and widespread despair about the ability of all three main parties to keep their promises on referendums, which has become an emblem of the distrust in which so many of our voters hold the British political establishment.

Anne Main: Many members of the British public, whether they hold the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) or those of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and indeed myself, would like to have the discussion. We went into a referendum on the alternative vote with a discussion
	led by the Prime Minister, who was not in favour of it, and other Members held honourable positions on the issue. This is about giving the discussion to the British public, however they would like to view it.

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will not debate at length the quality or timing of an EU referendum, although I think that those who voted for UKIP and are likely to do so in next year’s European elections will not be impressed unless we make every effort to hold a referendum as soon as possible, rather than when it suits the three main political parties for whatever reasons we have to continue putting it off.
	I wanted to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South that I have the figures from the House of Commons Library, and our total earnings from abroad constitute 44% of our GDP. We are a global trading nation and trade a higher proportion of our GDP than any other major European state. Trade with the EU comprises 19% of GDP, and 25% with the rest of the world. The rest of the world is the growing proportion; the EU is the declining proportion. Manufacturing is the only part that would be excluded, by virtue of the tariffs that were mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, and manufacturing exports to the EU comprise 10% of GDP, and 10% to the rest of the world—a substantial and important part of our economic activity.
	The point is that there is no evidence that we would not continue to trade that proportion of our manufactures with the European Union—incidentally, the figures are inflated by what we know as the Rotterdam-Antwerp effect because a lot of what we export to the EU is instantly exported to the rest of the world. We are regulating our entire economy and burdening our taxpayers with the costs of the contribution—rising to £19 billion gross—with our membership of the European Union. One hundred per cent. of our economic activity is burdened with those regulatory costs for the sake of less than 10% of our overall GDP.

Bob Russell: May I ask my neighbour and parliamentary colleague whether anything he has just said could not have been said by a member of UKIP?

Bernard Jenkin: I totally agree. The irony of this debate is that a lot of people in UKIP are saying things that are similar to what is felt by a lot of people who would like to vote Conservative at the next election. There is a majority in this country, and I think the Prime Minister was right to say that he wants a different relationship—a new relationship with our European partners.
	This entire debate is conducted on the premise that membership of the single market is indispensable to our national interest, is it not? Those who say we must remain in the EU come what may believe that the single market is indispensable to our national interest, but here are the facts. I have already mentioned how little of our GDP that we export in goods would be subject to tariffs were we not to have a free trade arrangement with the EU—probably around 8.7% of GDP. The idea that 3 million jobs are dependent on exports to the EU and that we would lose them if we left is a myth. There is no substantial evidence that we would lose any jobs.
	On the contrary, if we had a freer and less regulated economy, we would probably create more jobs by trading more easily with the rest of the world.
	The EU is in long-term structural decline and our non-EU markets are expanding. The UK enjoys a trading surplus with the rest of the world—with which we trade much more effectively—and we have a £70 billion trade deficit with the EU. The rest of the EU would therefore not want a trade war with the UK; it would not be in its interest. The idea that Ireland, or even Germany, would enter a trade war with the UK is absolutely ridiculous.
	By the Commission’s own admission, EU red tape costs 4% of the EU’s GDP. The single market does not reduce the costs of doing business in the EU; it is a regulatory burden on trading in the EU.

Debbie Abrahams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bernard Jenkin: I am not going to give way.
	The EU internal market has become an end in itself—it is a means of promoting political integration. We must accept that, in the minds of our European partners, the single market is indivisible from the treaties. Even if the UK were to leave the EU altogether and apply for article 50, the EU would be legally required to negotiate free and fair trade with non-EU countries, so we would continue to have access to EU markets. That different perspective, which voters and large parts of business are beginning to appreciate, is shifting the burden of the debate.
	Are we doing the right thing in creating such long uncertainty by putting off a referendum until 2017? Should we not have the referendum much sooner to bring the debate to a head? Are we too scared of our own voters to face the truth?

Jimmy Hood: I am delighted to have caught your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to speak in the debate on the Gracious Speech. I made my maiden speech in a debate on the Gracious Speech on 8 July 1987, following Mrs Thatcher’s third victory. I remember using an analogy. I said that the Government and the Gracious Speech were more of the same poison in a different bottle. I thought of that comment when I looked at the Conservative Back-Bench amendment. It is déjà vu, or Maastricht, all over again. If historians check the speeches on the Maastricht debate in Hansard against what we have heard in the past hour or so, I am sure they will understand what I am saying.

William Cash: As one who led the Maastricht rebellion, I should say that, at the time, we made predictions. Exactly what we said would happen has happened—that is the difference.

Jimmy Hood: The hon. Gentleman has been saying exactly what he said in the Maastricht debate ever since, at every opportunity. It will surprise no one, including me, if he continues to say those things, but I am speaking to the reality. Some say that the Conservative amendment is a UKIP amendment. In fact, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) accepted that he agrees with a lot of what UKIP says.
	I remind the House of something the Prime Minister said in his Conservative party leadership campaign. He promised the country and his party that he would make the Conservatives electable again, and get rid of the “nasty Tory” image. He travelled to the Arctic to embrace huskies, and came back here and cuddled hoodies. These are changed days. Where is he now? This week, with conspiracies going on behind his back in his own party in Parliament, he is away negotiating an EU trade deal. You could not make it up! As my grandmother used to say, when the cat’s away, the mice will play. That is what is happening to him.
	The debate and the run-up to it are more like Shakespeare’s assassination plot in “Julius Caesar”. The big question is who will be Brutus. Margaret Thatcher’s political assassination in 1990 had nothing, or nothing much, to do with Europe, but we have the same modus operandi. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) pointed out in a speech two weeks ago, the Conservatives kicked Mrs Thatcher out on the street like a dog.

Michael Connarty: My hon. Friend is asking questions, but not pointing fingers. Does he think it was significant that the Chancellor made a very anti-European statement today? He made it clear that he is in line with the people who are calling for the referendum, and demanding we join them, while the Prime Minister is away. He may not be the great wizard, but he is certainly the great Machiavellian.

Jimmy Hood: I do not disagree with that. The Chancellor is supposed to be the campaign manager for the Conservative party and he could well fit the title of Brutus. I do not want to accuse him of being a Brutus, because there are so many of them about. It will be interesting to see who is the first to stick the dagger in. I should thank the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) for having the temerity to speak up from the Government Benches in a pragmatic and sensible way on our membership of the European Union.
	One of the many questions thrown at our Front-Bench team is whether they support a referendum. Hon. Members should not bother to ask me. I do not support a referendum on staying in the United Nations, I do not support a referendum on staying in NATO and I do not support a referendum on staying in the European Union. Yes, the EU needs reforming, but it can only be reformed from within. We cannot reform it and influence it from outside, and I hope that can be taken as read.
	It is my judgment, supported by a considerable weight of evidence, that today’s Conservative party is so far to the right that it refuses to select candidates that are moderate, pragmatic or pro-Europe. There lies the difficulty. I started my younger political life being anti-Europe, but I accepted that the world moves on and I moved on with it. In the Labour party in the late ’70s and ’80s, it was difficult to be a candidate for a European seat without being anti-Europe. That is exactly where the Conservative party is now. The selection process is causing all the difficulties for its leader today in Parliament.

Anne Main: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. Does he not see that there is a slight bit of humble pie he should eat when he has a leader who is selected and guided by the unions?

Jimmy Hood: The hon. Lady will know that I always try to be respectful, but that is a foolish comment to make on such a serious subject. If she wants me to give my comments on the leader of the Labour party, I am absolutely delighted. I supported the leader of the Labour party, and I might point out that he is not doing badly, because we are considerably further ahead in the opinion polls than the Conservative Government.
	It looks like I am running out of time. The Queen’s Speech should have been about stability, growth and employment.

William Cash: Basically, I regard the whole question of having a referendum as fundamental. I led the Maastricht referendum campaign, and the question now is about the same fundamental questions we were addressing then. This is the problem: nothing has changed, but much has got worse. The real problem is one of urgency. This is not just about an abstract theory of sovereignty; it is about the economy, who governs Britain and whether we can achieve economic growth, which is what the debate is actually about. We cannot achieve economic growth in the circumstances I shall now describe. In my judgment, it would be wrong to wait until 2017, given that the situation is so urgent, as hon. Members will hear in a moment. The British Chambers of Commerce, which represents 104,000 businesses and 5 million employees, is concerned about the delay and the uncertainty that goes with it and about over-regulation.
	It is generally acknowledged by all parts of the House that our relationship with the EU has to change, but the trouble is with the institutional treaty changes, on which I have had meetings in Brussels. I saw Mr Van Rompuy only 48 hours ago and also Mr Olli Rehn, and the fact is that they are on a railway line, and are continuing along it. They talk about destiny, contracts with other countries—unenforceable as they might be—and more centralisation. The European Scrutiny Committee had an interesting meeting on that.

Bernard Jenkin: In his travels around Europe, has my hon. Friend gained the impression that there is any appetite in the Commission or among our European partners for substantial treaty change that would allow the United Kingdom to have a different relationship with the EU while remaining signed up to the existing treaties?

William Cash: It is my opinion, based on extensive discussions yesterday and over several months, that there is absolutely no prospect of any changes that would even begin to alter the circumstances we are now in and which are pivoted on the existing treaties.
	The problem is one of debt and deficit. We cannot pay for the public services needed in the country, whether health, education or whatever. I hear the point from Opposition Members and I agree with some of their arguments—it is not right that people should be deprived of services—and I do not believe that the entire answer depends on cuts. It depends on the subject of this debate,
	which is economic growth. We can grow with the rest of the world. We are running a trade surplus of about £13 billion with the rest of the world, other than the EU, with enormous potential in south-east Asia, India and Africa, which is where the emerging markets are. This is where we have to concentrate our efforts.
	On our trade relations with the other 26 member states, I ask hon. Members to take account of the following very alarming figures. Two weeks ago, during a debate on the Maastricht treaty and the convergence criteria, I gave what was then the latest figure, which was that we were running a trade deficit with the other 26 of £47 billion. Now, some might think a deficit of that scale is an awfully big loss, but the following Monday the new figure came out. In one year, the deficit had risen from £47 billion to £70 billion. Furthermore, the German surplus, which was running at £30 billion, rose to £70 billion between 2011 and 2012. It is essential that we take note and hold this referendum—and hold it urgently—because we have to deal with fundamental changes in the relationship that will enable us to disentangle ourselves from the spider’s web that we have got caught up in and which we have not asked the British people about since 1975. It is a vital question of national interest, and I beg hon. Members to listen.

Bernard Jenkin: Is not the corollary of what my hon. Friend is saying that if we follow the programme of the Labour party and continue to pursue a policy of closer integration and more burdens on our economy, it will mean more cuts, more borrowing, slower growth and more unemployment than if we sort out this relationship?

William Cash: My hon. Friend is completely right. Labour caused the debt and the deficit; now Labour Members want to engage in more borrowing without the growth that would come from expanding our trade with the rest of the world.

Jimmy Hood: rose—

William Cash: I will give way to the former Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee.

Jimmy Hood: I am listening with interest, as I always do, to the hon. Gentleman’ s speech, and I have heard it a few times—a lot of times, in fact. If he gets his referendum and the vote is overwhelmingly, or marginally, in favour of staying in the EU, will he then embrace the EU and work from the positive side, in the same way as everybody else?

William Cash: I have come to the conclusion that we have to leave the existing treaties, but I will say one last thing. The UK Independence party argument is self-defeating, for a simple reason. If UKIP were to take a number of marginal seats on the scale that seems likely and we were to lose the next general election, UKIP will not get the referendum or make the changes it wants, because we would be faced with a Lib-Lab, pro-integrationist, anti-referendum situation, which would be a complete disaster. UKIP, with which I am quite obviously much in agreement, will not produce the answers, because it is not possible to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 or have a referendum without a majority of MPs. It does not have a majority and it will not get one.

Michael Meacher: The Tory party is obviously going through one of its regular hissy fits over the EU. My experience is that it is best not to intrude in toxic family feuds, so I will confine my remarks to the economy.
	Support for the Chancellor’s policy has totally evaporated. His intellectual ballast, provided by Reinhart and Rogoff—namely, that growth rapidly declined once a threshold of debt of 90% had been reached—has been blown out of the water. The International Monetary Fund, the citadel of neo-liberal capitalism, has deserted the Chancellor. The British Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses and even the CBI are now openly criticising from the sidelines. The only austerians who are still full square behind the Chancellor are those in the eurozone. I hope he takes comfort from the fact that that paragon of economic virtue is now his last remaining ally. Contractionary fiscal expansion—his policy—is, to use the words he used today, a totally busted flush. It is an absurd oxymoron, as it always was. Once the rate of growth has slowed below the expansion of debt, the policy is doomed, and that is exactly where we are. Given that, it is so counter-productive now to continue with a policy of semi-permanent stagnation that one has to wonder what the Chancellor’s real motives are—apart, of course, from his own personal survival.
	The US has put in place demand-creating measures and is steadily coming out of recession. The UK and the eurozone have not put such measures in place and they are slowly sinking deeper into recession. So why is the Chancellor so obstinately refusing to accept what the evidence is telling him? Why is he refusing to accept what even the IMF is telling him to do? The only plausible explanation is that this is not, in the last analysis, a deficit reduction policy at all; it is ultimately driven by the obsession to shrink the state and squeeze the public sector into the farthest recesses of a fully privatised regime. If that is so, crucifying the UK economy on a cross of ideology is hardly a proper way to proceed.
	Of course, the Chancellor likes to defend himself, as he did again today, by saying that any stimulus to the economy will only increase the debt and thus make matters worse, but that is simply not true. First, instead of being kitted out for privatisation, the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds—which taxpayers and the Government own 82% and 39% of respectively—could be instructed to prioritise lending for industry, infrastructure, low-carbon technology and key manufacturing niches in which the UK has a natural advantage.
	A second option is the taxation of the hyper-rich, who have so far contributed almost nothing to tackling the recession that they largely caused. The latest rich list published in The Sunday Times a month ago showed that the richest 1,000 people—that is, 0.003% of the adult population—have increased their wealth over the past four years since the crash by a staggering £190 billion. That is considerably more than the total budget deficit, and if it were taxed at the current capital gains tax rate of 28%, it could theoretically raise £53 billion.

Stephen Williams: I note that the right hon. Gentleman talks about the “current” capital gains tax rate of 28%. Would he like to remind us what the rate was for the last five years of the Government in whom he served?

Michael Meacher: As the hon. Gentleman and everyone else knows, it was 10% less. I strongly opposed that; I think that it was wrong. I do not think that 28% is right either. The rate should be where Nigel Lawson left it—namely, at 40%. But let us stick with 28%. That would easily raise enough money to create between 1 million and 1.5 million jobs in two years, which would kick-start a virtuous spiral of growth.
	The third option is another tranche of quantitative easing. The gigantic sum of £375 billion of quantitative easing has already been printed, and it has disappeared into consolidating bank balance sheets. A further, much more modest, tranche of £25 billion, invested directly into the economy, bypassing the banks, could once again kick-start the economy without any increase in borrowing at all.
	It is also highly relevant to point out, which the Chancellor never does, that the balance of payments on our traded goods, which has been going up for a long time, reached the staggering level of £106 billion in this last year. That is 7% of gross domestic product. Worse news can be seen when we consider the growth that we like to think occurred in the UK during the best years up to 2007. The National Statistics register shows growth of £300 billion, but that is slightly less than the total for equity withdrawal from housing for the same period. In other words, the inflation of property assets largely accounts for the apparent growth. So, rebalancing the economy, which is now vital, is not going to occur simply with a flourish of the Chancellor’s wand. It will need a hard-won, relentless programme of manufacturing revival, and the restructuring of the banks to ensure that they look after the national interest and not their own.

Ben Wallace: People used to say that England’s bread hung by Lancashire’s thread. In this debate, I want to focus on some of the good news on the rebalancing of the economy. The news has not been all bad, and, despite the economic circumstances, my constituents and the people of Lancashire have a good track record of rebuilding and moving forward and of expanding exports and manufacturing.
	Manufacturing output rose last month. Today’s figures show that, in my constituency, unemployment dropped again. It dropped compared with last month and with last year. We now have 81,000 more people working in manufacturing than we did in 2011. Despite all the economic troubles, the people of Lancashire live in the real world. They know how the welfare changes have helped to encourage people to get back into work, and they know that the Government’s policy is trying to help businesses large and small to export and grow.
	Despite our domestic difficulties on the European Union at the moment, that “real-worldness” of my Lancashire constituents has been demonstrated in the recent local elections. The real story in Lancashire was not the United Kingdom Independence party; it was that the Labour party failed to take back the county that it had run for 26 years. Funnily enough, people are not convinced by the Ed and Ed show, or by Labour’s economic credibility. But let us move away from the European thing. I know that the Opposition would like
	to focus on it, but I think that it will pass—
	[
	Laughter.
	]
	Opposition Members might laugh, but there are nine marginal seats in Lancashire, and if Labour cannot win Lancashire county council, it is not going to win a general election fast. Labour knows that.
	BAE is one of our local employers, and 19,000 people work in the aerospace industry. Profits are up, orders are up, and it has recently landed a £2.5 billion order from Oman to build Hawks and Typhoons. The Typhoon Eurofighter is made in Samlesbury and Warton. That did not happen by accident, but because of the investment in skills that successive Governments and this Government have put into my constituency. Recently, the Government announced extra funding for Preston further education college, and more is on the way for Myerscough. Building up the skills base is one reason why BAE remains one of the most competitive and leading exporters in the country, training thousands of apprentices every year—some Government funded, some not.
	As we speak, the Prime Minister is abroad yet again, trying to make sure that we negotiate a free trade treaty to allow British business to prosper in the American market. Only recently, we had a state visit from the President of United Arab Emirates, which was partly about trying to sell more British and Lancashire-made manufacturing to the middle east. The Prime Minister has taken rebalancing the economy and moving forward on growth seriously.
	We have seen investment through the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, under its Secretary of State—the Liberal Democrat part of our coalition—that has helped to support the Lancashire local enterprise zone in Samlesbury, where we hope to get skills academies and more investment in our young people.
	Then, beyond that, are the changes the Chancellor has produced in the Budget—an increase in the use of the R and D tax credit that rewards our investment, for example, and the rolling out of the patent box, which means people who exploit their intellectual property in this country will pay some of the lowest corporation tax in Europe. That is why this country has a future in growing its manufacturing base and is on the right path to rebalancing.
	In future, I want the Government to continue to invest in the F-35 joint strike fighter and the new generation of unmanned aerial vehicles. I also look to a city deal for Preston, hopefully worth £300 million—if we can get the Treasury to move along a bit quicker.
	Something that is important for the future of the whole country is shale gas, and it is under my feet, in my constituency, that the Bowland shale exists. It is currently valued at 35 billion barrels of oil equivalent of gas—a $200 billion revenue stream, should it be extracted. We need it in Lancashire and in the country more widely for security of supply; we need it as alternative energy; and we need it to make sure that this country benefits from its assets and its mineral wealth.
	We in Lancashire have a story to tell. Lancashire’s history is about reinventing itself and building for the future. It is not for nothing that Preston is one of the northern cities that bucked the trend since 1908 and has been one of the most progressive cities. Let us remember for the future that—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Hazel Blears: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), but I can assure him that it is not our party that is obsessed with Europe. I think he needs to get his own house in order.
	The last few years have been enormously difficult for families trying to make ends meet, working really hard and trying to give their young people a decent start in life. Arguments will rage about austerity cuts and the lack of investment—there are as many opinions as there are economists. I do not want to rehearse those arguments today, but to talk about something practical that I believe can help to address our economy’s problems that are causing such misery to thousands of families across the land.
	There is sometimes a moment—in business, in politics and in communities—when an idea begins to take root, to gather support and to gain traction and momentum. I believe that the emergence of social value is one such moment. If it is pursued with energy and integrity, it could make a reality of the so far rather nebulous concept of responsible capitalism.
	Eighteen months ago, I worked with the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) to take the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 through this House, and I was delighted to do so. The duty to put social value at the heart of public procurement came in at the end of January. If implemented across government, across local government and in private sector supply chains, I believe it could make a huge difference to the number of apprenticeships, the amount of local labour, the building of small and medium-sized enterprises and the encouragement of innovation.
	Over the last year, I brought some big companies together with social enterprises to see how they could collaborate to renew our economy. I have been heartened by the commitment from the private sector. Good companies know that this is not about philanthropy or altruism, because doing good is good business. Moving from traditional corporate social responsibility into a place where businesses are using their mainstream models to make a social impact in procurement, human relations, marketing and product development is helping to get social value into companies’ DNA. That is the way to get our economy moving.
	Let me give a couple of examples. Sodexo, whose headquarters are in Salford, is working with one of my local social enterprises to take on ex-offenders to carry out grounds maintenance and facilities management. That is a fantastic partnership. Deloitte is helping 30 social enterprises to grow to scale under its social investment pioneers programme. CH2M HILL, which built the Olympics stadium and is working on High Speed 2, has values that extend to every level of the company when it comes to apprenticeships, training and social mobility. Trading for Good is a brand new website where people can ask questions such as “Which is the company that takes apprentices? I want that company to redo my roof. Which is the company that is building local supply chains? I want to spend my money there.” It is a fantastic resource.

Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that social value, if combined—as it can be, and will be—with crowdsourcing and crowdfunding, will bring a real democratic renewal and a modern capitalism to our country?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The combination of social value and the creation of social investment through crowdsourcing, peer-to-peer lending and the activities of the Big Society Capital bank, which was a Labour idea, will take us along precisely that track.
	My final example is Interserve, which employs 50,000 people and has a turnover of £2 billion. Its chief executive, Adrian Ringrose, recently committed himself to reinvesting 3% of his profits in the communities where his companies operate. That is the kind of thing that good, decent companies can do, and it can make a big difference. Such companies want to rebuild trust and secure a better reputation for big business, which has suffered from a lack of trust because of the activities of the banks and others. There is also the fact that it is good business.
	The challenge for the Government is to enable that activity to become mainstream, rather than a niche activity in which only a few people engage. I ask them to think seriously about extending the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 to cover goods and major infrastructure. Over the next five years, we shall spend £200 billion on the really important things that we need: energy, transport—including High Speed 2—and building broadband. Why should we not include social value clauses relating to local labour and local supply chains in all infrastructure contracts? Can we not imagine the difference that that could make?
	When money is tight—and it would be tight for us if we were in government— we can make a real difference by gaining extra impact from procurement and by doing business differently. We need community reinvestment, and we need to provide incentives for companies such as Interserve to do the right thing. A year ago, when I presented a ten-minute rule Bill in the House, I suggested that bankers could voluntarily put some of their income into local social enterprises. That might even make bankers popular, for goodness’ sake, and it is a very practical thing that we could do.
	The Government must also support the development of measurement and metrics for social impact. There is a lot of good work going on. The Connectives Limited in Manchester, which is run by two inspirational woman accountants, has done fabulous work on social audit and accounting, but if we are to make such activity mainstream, we need to ensure that the metrics are rigorous and substantial. I should like the Treasury to do some more work on that.
	In the time that I have left, I want to mention the Big Society Capital bank. It was the bank’s first anniversary last week, and I went to an event to mark it in the City. There was standing room only because there was such a huge appetite for the creation of a social investment market. The leadership of Sir Ronald Cohen and Nick O’Donohoe is first class. They have some really good ideas about how to get products to market, and about new types of bond such as social impact bonds. They are trying to persuade foundations and pension funds to invest. I welcome the Government’s consultation on
	a tax relief for social investment; I think that that is a very good idea. It could release an extra half a billion pounds into the market.
	Difficult economic times demand creativity, innovation and boldness. We must get behind that, and make it happen.

Peter Bone: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), who made a passionate and knowledgeable speech about social value.
	Amendment (b) has been signed by 92 right hon. and hon. Members, drawn from the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, and Democratic Unionist parties. The amendment respectfully regrets
	“that an EU referendum Bill was not included in the Gracious Speech.”
	Members may wonder why I am speaking about the European Union on a day that was allocated to a debate on economic growth. The one thing that is certain is that there is absolutely no connection between economic growth and membership of the EU—quite the reverse. However, it is the Labour Opposition who choose the subject for each day of debate on the Queen’s Speech. On no day did they choose to debate foreign affairs, which indicates how little regard they have for international relations in general and Europe in particular. I suspect they did not want to let the House know of their divisions over Europe.
	The Prime Minister would have liked to put an EU referendum Bill in the Queen’s Speech, but was blocked by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Liberal Democrats. However, yesterday the Conservative party published a draft EU referendum Bill. If this Bill can be debated in Parliament, I believe it can become law.

Jimmy Hood: The hon. Gentleman has just imparted some very interesting information to the House. Is he saying that the Prime Minister has told the Conservative party that he wanted a referendum Bill in this Queen’s Speech but he was stopped by the Liberals?

Peter Bone: That is exactly what I am saying.
	The published Bill is short and to the point. The question is clear—

Stephen Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Bone: May I make a little progress, as I am about to quote the question?
	The question is clear:
	“Do you think that the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union?”
	If the Bill is passed, the Prime Minister could try to negotiate a European free trade area or, in other words, a common market, without all the regulations, red tape, and cost, without the EU laws, the European Court, the European Parliament, the Commission and the bureaucracy, without the £19 billion a year it costs just to be a member of the EU, and without the £30 billion-plus trade deficit with the EU each year. However, ultimately I do not believe that these negotiations will succeed, not because of the efforts of the Prime Minister, but because of the attitude of the EU elite.

Stephen Williams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I sometimes think there are three parties in the coalition: my party, the Liberal Democrats; the sensible wing of the Conservative party, whose Members serve on the Government Front Bench; and the hon. Gentleman’s wing of the Conservative party. However, my information is that the Conservative party did not ask for this referendum to be in the Queen’s Speech, so I think he ought to have a word with his colleagues.

Peter Bone: It is very good news that the Liberal Democrats have had a change of heart and will now allow the European referendum Bill to come forward in Government time. I appreciate that useful intervention.
	In any case, once these negotiations have finished, there will, for the first time in 30 years, be a vote by the people of this country on whether we should remain in the European Union. That will happen no later than the end of 2017, but of course it may be much earlier.
	Anyone who votes against the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) is clearly opposed to a referendum on our relationship with the EU. However, if Members vote for the amendment, they are clearly supporting the prospect of an in/out referendum. If the amendment is carried, the House will, in effect, have said that the Government should bring in an EU referendum Bill. It will say to the Prime Minister that the House of Commons supports his position. It will say to the Liberal Democrats, “How dare you block the will of this House and the will of the nation?”
	The Liberal Democrats went into the 2010 general election claiming that they would offer an in/out referendum on Europe. On page 67 of their extraordinary manifesto “Change that Works for You”, the Liberal Democrats said:
	“The European Union has evolved significantly since the last public vote on membership over thirty years ago. Liberal Democrats therefore remain committed to an in/out referendum”.
	That works for me. This change of heart is, even by Liberal Democrats standards, totally absurd.
	Now I shall turn to the position of the Labour party. The Labour Opposition promised a referendum on the EU constitution before they were elected, yet as soon as they came to power, they dropped the referendum. On Europe, they are the poodles of Brussels—they roll over and do everything the EU wants, including giving away Mrs Thatcher’s hard-won rebate. They simply cannot be trusted on Europe.
	The shadow Chancellor sort of indicated that Labour Members would vote against the amendment today—it was impossible to know what he thought about an EU referendum—but every Member will have to make their mind up. Members who vote against the amendment are voting against an EU referendum—[Interruption.] Colleagues from the Scottish National party will do so, and their position is clear. Labour Members who do so will also make their position clear—they are against giving the people the chance of a say on the relationship with Europe.
	A vote for the amendment today would give the Prime Minister the moral authority to bring in his EU referendum Bill as a Government measure. Members of the House should vote for the amendment because it is in the national interest. It is right that after 30 years the
	British public should have their say on Europe. When Members cast their vote tonight, they should not decide on the basis of party politics. That is not why we are in this mother of Parliaments; we are here to represent our constituents and to put the country first. I know that some principled Opposition Members will support the amendment, and many principled Opposition Members will oppose it, because they do not support having a referendum. One thing is for sure: every Member of this House must vote according to their conscience, and when it comes to the vote, their constituents will know whether they are in favour of an EU referendum or against it.

Pat McFadden: The central question since the financial crash has been how to secure recovery in tough economic times. When the election took place, economic growth had been restored and unemployment was falling, but since then we have seen precious little growth, and unemployment is rising once again. Dealing with that should have been the central purpose of this Queen’s Speech and this debate.
	There are measures in the Queen’s Speech—some worthwhile—to help small businesses to recruit new employees, which we called for, and to extend apprenticeships, which were significantly expanded during our time in government. However, one is left with the impression that although some of the measures may be worthwhile, as a whole they are not equal to the depth and durability of our economic problems. In fact, the Government seem to have given up and are waiting desperately for the new Governor of the Bank of England to secure the economic growth that they have so signally failed to secure.
	The Queen’s Speech seems to be more about positioning and fear of the UK Independence party than about genuinely dealing with the country’s economic problems. UKIP, however, is a movement against the political establishment as a whole. It is based on a vision of the United Kingdom as it used to be, not as it is or how it will be. I have to say to Government Members that they cannot fight nostalgia with policy or positioning; the only way to answer nostalgia is to offer a better tomorrow, rather than having an argument about a better yesterday.
	The Queen’s Speech has been completely overtaken by the argument about Europe. The amendment has attracted more and more signatures, and as it has done so, the Prime Minister’s professed relaxation has become greater and greater—presumably, by 7 o’clock tonight he will be completely asleep. His relaxation is not strength but weakness, and it fools no one. It is not only about the Back Benchers; while he is in the United States arguing for a European-American trade agreement, his own Cabinet Ministers are touring the studios to say that they would vote to come out of the European Union. It all feels very familiar, and it is little wonder that John Major’s former press secretary said this week that
	“there are some parallels with the back end of John Major’s premiership.
	One of the differences is, that was when the Conservatives had been in power for 17 or 18 years. Now the Conservatives have only been in power in coalition for two or three years.”
	No wonder President Obama had to warn the Prime Minister this week that the UK’s influence is greater when we are engaged with and in the European Union. The notion that we can swap membership of the European Union for some other transatlantic embrace is confounded by that warning, which I hope is heard on the Government Benches.

William McCrea: Is it not about time that we asked the British people—that the people of the United Kingdom made the decision, rather than politicians dictating to them the future relationship with Europe?

Pat McFadden: We then come to the draft Bill. There was no talk of that beforehand, no suggestion of it in the Queen’s Speech. It is a panic response to the amendment, a failed attempt to buy off tonight’s rebels. This tells us so much about how the Government operate—short-term tactics, not long-term strategy. However, the tactics fail to buy off the rebels, who are simply emboldened and come back for more. Even this afternoon we have heard people saying, “2017 is not soon enough. We need the referendum now.”
	The truth is that whether the Bill is a private Member’s Bill or a Government Bill in this Parliament, no Parliament can bind the next Parliament. The time to put legislation forward to have a referendum is before the Government want the referendum, not four or five years in advance. The tactics will not work in the short term; they will simply increase the Government’s pain. Instead of stopping banging on about Europe, the Tories are back to doing little else. That is because too many people on the Government Benches care more about this than about the country’s economic problems or about being in government.
	The centrepiece of the Prime Minister’s strategy is renegotiation. We have been here before, too. Harold Wilson had exactly the same strategy in the 1970s—renegotiate, then hold a referendum. He put the conclusions to the House in March 1975. To those who have not read them, I recommend that they do so. They will find plenty about beef, butter and sugar, but nothing about fundamentally altered terms of membership.
	When today’s Prime Minister is asked what he wants from the renegotiation, the only specific he mentions is the working time directive. The working time directive was already renegotiated in the previous Parliament. We dealt with the on-call issue and the preservation of the UK’s opt-out. The important thing about that is that it was done without threatening to leave the European Union. If that is all that the Prime Minister can come up with, no one will believe it. Of course the European Union needs reform. It needs to be more flexible and less rigid and it needs to concentrate more on growth and jobs. The Prime Minister has a far greater chance of achieving those goals if he is not threatening to leave at the same time. This is a broader argument about our vision of the UK. Is it to be engaged or is it to retreat into nostalgia? I know which I prefer.

Ian Swales: I was pleased to see that the Gracious Speech mentioned tackling tax evasion, and that the Chancellor later added tax avoidance in a G8 conference interview. He often says he is proud of a
	corporation tax rate that is the most competitive in the G20. Unfortunately, large companies can easily move their profits and operations outside the G20. I want to speak about the effect that this is having on the UK economy and growth.
	There is widespread bafflement about how we can have an extra 1.2 million private sector jobs and so little growth. Part of the answer is tax avoidance, because many of those workers are employed by offshore companies. For example, Amazon is growing in this country at more than 20% a year. It employs thousands of people, but its sales of £4 billion do not appear in our economy. They appear in Luxembourg. Microsoft, eBay, Google and others have large businesses in the UK but their figures do not show up either, and the Google chief executive proudly talked about avoiding $2 billion in tax last year.
	Now let us turn to the companies that are based here. The tax system encourages them to move manufacturing and other parts of their supply chain overseas. The Government’s change in controlled foreign company legislation makes this even more likely. Companies that do declare large profits here will find that they get a knock on the door from a well paid tax partner of a large accountancy firm, who will put forward schemes whereby corporation tax can be avoided, the simplest of which is to export the profits to Luxembourg via interest payments. This is a route followed by well-known companies such as Vodafone and Pearson, owner of the Financial Times. In fact, it is done by most of our national newspapers, which might explain why media reporting of this issue is patchy at best.
	If a profit-making company fails to succumb to the charm offensive of the tax partner, something more sinister is likely to happen. The next knock on the door could be from the vulture capitalists—representatives targeting an aggressive takeover of the company. Let us take a current example. The outstanding business success and growth of Betfair has led it recently to declare £247 million in profits. Its prospective suitors are CVC Capital. What will it bring to Betfair—better management; outstanding new internet technology? The clue is probably in the description of CVC as a London and Luxembourg-based venture capitalist. I am guessing that it will bring a shameless approach to exporting Betfair’s profits to avoid paying UK corporation tax. Boots and Thames Water are just two of the many companies that have been taken over and had their UK profits stripped out of the country and placed in tax havens.
	The Government have themselves facilitated tax avoidance, not just through the tax framework but through their procurement and private finance initiative activity. The Green Book on PFI assessment still contains an assumption that 10% of total PFI payments, not profits, will come back to the Government in tax. This is risible when one examines the facts. The vast bulk of PFI deals now have an offshore element. HMRC’s own offices are owned in Bermuda, the Home Office HQ is owned in Guernsey, PFI schools in my constituency are 50% owned in Jersey, and, most bizarrely of all, junction 1A to junction 3 of the M40 is 50% owned in Guernsey. This is the story throughout the country. It is high time the Green Book was changed.
	The leakage of money from our tax system and the incentives for companies to operate in certain ways are bad for the economy, bad for growth and bad for individual taxpayers. I welcome the moves that the Government have already made. Let us remember that nearly all the framework was put in place or left in place by the last Government, and they compounded the problem by sucking up to their friends in the City, stripping high-level resource out of HMRC and telling it to go easy on big companies.
	I hope that the Government will consider limiting offshore interest payments and closing the loopholes in Luxembourg and Holland, via our membership of the EU. They should prosecute tax evaders and expose and, where appropriate, prosecute their advisers. They should add advisers to their team who are not from big business or big accountancy firms and can speak up for ordinary taxpayers and small business, and they should increase specialist HMRC resources. Tax evasion and avoidance is a cancer in our society and I hope that the Government will keep on acting aggressively to cut it out.

Barry Sheerman: The debates on the Queen’s Speech are a good time to look again at the relationship between us as elected Members and those who sent us here. I always feel that the one thing that I should be doing for my constituents in Huddersfield is to try to ensure that they have a good life, and most of us know what that entails. One of the things that make me feel that the good life is achievable is that over the years we have come closer to being a high-skilled, high-paid economy. However, in recent years we have faltered, and we must look closely at the challenges that we face, globally and internationally, that might lead to us being a low-skills, low-pay economy. There is already great competition around the world from people with high skills who are low paid, and I think of India in particular. Any Queen’s Speech debate on the economy must think thoroughly about the policies that we pursue in order to obtain the good life for our constituents, with high pay in a high skills economy.
	I quite liked some measures in the Queen’s Speech, including those relating to capital allowances and the employment allowance. It is not all bad; it is just all a bit vapid. There are some big gaps; big opportunities. We have just spent about 18 months with almost nothing to debate in the House, so there is plenty of room for a vigorous programme to get this country moving and working again.
	I would have loved to see more vision, leadership and courage in the Queen’s Speech. There are so many things that we could be doing. Everyone will know of my interest in skills. I think that any Queen’s Speech at this time, when nearly 1 million young people are unemployed, should have introduced a Bill to abolish unemployment before the age of 25. It would cost only between £4.5 billion and £5 billion a year, but it would have stopped politicians condemning young people to live in the shadows of society on a bit of unemployment benefit here and a bit of housing benefit there. We could have ensured that every young person in this country was in education, training or work experience of some kind. That would have broken, and can still break, the curse of intergenerational worklessness. That is what we should have had in the Queen’s Speech.
	What is wrong? We can have high-falutin’ economics in this debate, but the fact is that I would be in favour of a little inflation and debt, rather than less. Keynes was in favour of that, and so am I. I am an economist, I am afraid, and my economics are from the London School of Economics. We had two good things there: we were pretty Keynesian in those days, but certainly not Marxist, and we believed in our motto, which was “To know the causes of things.” It means getting beneath a subject and understanding it in an intelligent way.
	There are two things that I think plague us today. First, because people are so threatened, they are turning to UKIP, and the terror and fear on the Government Benches is apparent, as today’s debate has been taken over by a debate on Europe and fear of UKIP. The fact of the matter is that I have seen no major independent assessment of what the impact of leaving the European Union would be on the living standards of my constituents and on the well-being and good life of the people of this country.
	Secondly—I will just throw this point in—I am a little worried about one thing that is in the Bill: HS2. It is expected to cost between £45 billion and £50 billion. That money, if invested in the northern and midland cities of this country, could transform the lives of cities that are now endangered. I will use the debates as the Bill goes through to make that point.
	There were some good things in the Queen’s Speech, although there has been a bit of a diversion today, and it is sad to see the Conservative party in such a terrible state of distress, but the fact is that there could have been more content to get jobs, skills and homes into our country.

Richard Drax: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). I very much agree about the importance of apprenticeships, on which the Government are rightly concentrating. One radical solution would be to reduce welfare even further and use the money to encourage employers to employ youngsters so that we can train them and get them back into work, rather than giving them money to stay wherever they are doing nothing. That would be a radical solution, or part-solution, to our problems.
	We have been talking about negotiating with Europe for some time, and I learnt from the Library today that we have failed to block a £6.2 billion hike in this year’s EU budget, a rise of 5.5% on the original plan. If that is a successful negotiation, I would hate to see a bad one. For the United Kingdom, that means an extra £800 million, taking our contribution this year to £14.7 billion.
	Yesterday I heard Nick Robinson on Radio 4 describe the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), and signed by me and others, as “parliamentary graffiti”, which I understand to be a meaningless scrawl that has no real impact. I must say that I am slightly tired of the way the press and other commentators just deride the genuine aim of looking at our relationship with the EU, which is desperately needed. Members on both sides of the House—this is what is so extraordinary—agree on that point. As I indicated at the start of my speech, despite the negotiations that go on, we simply do not succeed.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that the problem with the BBC is that it is institutionally biased towards the European Union?

Richard Drax: After I left the BBC I think it certainly lurched to the left.
	We have seen what happens when we peddle the line of fruitcakes and loonies: the electorate, who are disaffected enough with us as it is, vote for the party accused of having fruitcakes and loonies. The votes for UKIP two weeks ago only showed what thousands and millions of voters believe. They do not believe that the amendment is graffiti; they believe that we have a major problem and that we—this is why I was sent to this House—have to deal with our relationship with the EU.
	The amendment is not, and we are not, attacking the Prime Minister at all. In fact, if hon. Members listen to what the Prime Minister has said, they will hear that he agrees with the amendment. We have been sent here—all of us—to look after our country’s interests and those of our constituents. It is my view, and that of many learned Members, that a renegotiation with the EU is vital. I suspect that it will not be successful, which will lead, I hope, to a referendum and the inevitable vote of “out”.
	How often have I heard—I have heard it again in today’s debate—those who are opposed to leaving the EU say that we should focus instead on the economy and jobs? But that is what the EU debate is all about—it is about the economy and jobs. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) turns his eyes to the ground as if to say, “Oh dear, here’s another xenophobic Euro-nutter banging on,” but that is not what I am doing; I am speaking for our country and acknowledging what the vote for UKIP showed. We have to wake up in this place.

Ian Swales: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Drax: I will carry on, if I may.
	If we do not wake up, we will lose the respect of the people of this country. I would suggest that repatriating the competences that still go to the EU, despite the treaties that have been agreed and the promises that have been made, would do more than anything else to generate jobs in this country. This is a golden opportunity that we must take if we want to restore the trust in this House and this country that was thrown away as a result of the failed promises over Maastricht and Lisbon.
	What more evidence do we need that the EU is dead? It is finished. Look around! Wake up! Greece is a disaster and Spain is potentially on the brink of civil war—53% of youths are unemployed. [Interruption.] Hon. Members say, “Oh, my God!”, but there are riots in the streets and their own police are bashing youngsters over the head. This is the Europe that we now face.

Margot James: rose—

Stephen Williams: rose—

Richard Drax: I will not give way, because I have only a short time left.
	France is a basket case. Outside the EU, the economies of the BRIC nations—Brazil, Russia, India and China—and Asia are growing. In the past few days, President Obama has been encouraging our Prime Minister to fix the relationship with the EU. We have been trying to do
	that for years and years, but we have not succeeded. We joined the common market to trade with Europe and that is the relationship that we need and must have. Finally, this is not about nostalgia, as I think an Opposition Member has said, but about reality.

Sammy Wilson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). The Democratic Unionist party endorses his views on the amendment, which we support. We believe it is important that the people of the United Kingdom should have a say about their relationship with Europe. Some of those who oppose the commitment to a referendum claim that it will somehow leave us with four years of uncertainty and that that will damage investment in the UK, but the genie is out of the bottle as far as renegotiation and a referendum are concerned. Any investor knows what will happen at some stage in the future, so there should be no difficulty in giving the people of the United Kingdom a say on this very important issue. I will concentrate on other issues that relate to economic growth, but I accept that our relationship with Europe impacts on economic growth in this country.
	If we are to achieve the objectives in the Queen’s Speech of giving people job opportunities, rewarding hard work and reforming welfare, economic growth is important. If we are to create economic growth, we need proper stimulus. The Chancellor and the Government argue that we cannot borrow more in order to borrow less. That is not true. Good, solid investment in the economy would help us to grow and to pay our debts. That is not the view of those on the extreme left wing; it is the view of the IMF, which is hardly a left-wing organisation. In fact, many of its policies resonate with what is said by the Government. It is also the view of many industry organisations.
	More importantly, the evidence of what has been happening in the economy bears out that view. The hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) talked about what is happening in his constituency. Nearly every example that he gave was the result of stimulus through Government borrowing and spending to create infrastructure and produce jobs. I could give stacks of examples from Northern Ireland. There has been investment in our tourism industry. Not so long ago, we got a Barnett consequential as a result of the Government deciding to spend more money on housing. We put it into co-ownership housing, which has brought money down from the banks and has led to almost half of the houses being built in the private sector. Just a small amount of money from the public sector has created construction jobs and allowed people to pay their taxes, which adds to Government revenue and helps to pay off the deficit.
	There is a strong case, even from traditional supporters of the Government, for borrowing and spending more money to stimulate the economy. The Chancellor made a big point today about the money markets. Actually, the money markets are quite relaxed about this. They are lending money to the United Kingdom on negative interest rates. There is more demand for Government bonds than supply. If there are sensible investment
	policies, the money can be made available. The question is whether there is the will or whether the Government have some other motive.
	I am disappointed that there is not much detail on what the Government intend to do about banking. According to the figures published by the British Bankers Association, lending by the banks in Northern Ireland has fallen substantially since 2010. We have not dealt with the banking crisis. There is not time in this debate to talk about the detail, but unless the Government grasp the nettle and decide what to do with failing banks that are undercapitalised and unable or unwilling to lend, we will not stimulate growth. I believe that there is great potential and that a Government stimulus could release the billions of pounds of cash assets that are sitting on company balance sheets, which would enable us to get growth and achieve the objectives of—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Neil Carmichael: It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson).
	This debate is about economic growth, and quite right too. It is good that the Governor of the Bank of England has signalled that growth is on its way and that inflation is likely to decline. That is a good combination. It is absolutely right, therefore, that we should focus on monetary activism.
	Another important matter to which the Gracious Speech referred was supply-side reform. We still need to achieve elements of that, and we still have two years to do so. It is at the core of rebalancing the economy, so I want to say a word or two about supply chains. We labour under an illusion in our arguments about the trade deficit if we do not understand the complexity of supply chains and their importance across Europe and the globe. It is not just the finished product that matters but the components that make it, which provide added value. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is looking into that matter, because if we understand supply chains we will get a better understanding of why the European Union and the single market matter to us. That situation is made clear in my constituency, where Delphi makes the diesel injectors for the engines of 40% or so of heavy trucks manufactured and used in Europe. That is an example of component parts that go towards an end product making a big difference to the economy as a whole.
	I move on to trade, and first to EU-US trade. We have to have a relationship between the United States and the European Union that makes sense and promotes trade. Right now, there are far too many tariffs, both the type that we know about and hidden tariffs. We have to end that, and the Prime Minister is absolutely right to talk about doing that. That is why President Obama was helpful to him in pointing out that we may as well fix our relationship before we decide to end it. That is a simple message that we have to consider.
	Germany, Italy and usually France trade more than we do with India, China and Brazil, the economies with which we need to develop relationships. We have to pose the question whether leaving the EU would help us overtake the countries that would still be in it, and the
	answer is no. Instead, we should consider what we can do here to improve our exports rather than worry about having an alibi and a series of excuses. It is what we do here that actually matters. That is why it is important that UK Trade & Investment, for example, is providing the right network of support for small and medium-sized enterprises. We need to ensure that some of our SMEs are big enough to penetrate the markets that I mentioned and have the right skill sets and determination. We need to start emulating Germany’s mittelstand approach to ensure that our firms are big, robust and strategic enough to tackle export markets. If we do that in a way that signifies an intention to improve our export performance, we will succeed, but it will not be because we have abandoned our partners.
	Obviously we need to renegotiate our relationship with the EU, because no form of government or system of institutions should remain unchanged and unreformed. The EU is a classic example of that. However, we have to decide what our priorities in those negotiations are and what we need to achieve. For me, it should be increased competition, both within Europe and through Europe being able to compete globally. We are in a global situation, and we cannot start arguing about some sort of family dispute. The reforms have to focus on the global scale and the need to be competitive.
	One area that we need to explore is energy, because we need competition and connectivity between energy producers, especially for the benefit of consumers. I would put such topics on the agenda, but we need to reform and be positive, vigorous and confident.

Adrian Bailey: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael). I agreed with virtually every word he said—I am sorry if that ruins his future career.
	We are now in the fourth year of this Government, and during their time in office we have had flatlining economic growth, a squeeze on family incomes with a reduction of something like £2,000 per family per annum, and mounting debt, borrowing having increased by £245 billion. The growth industries are the payday loan companies or food banks, and in such a situation one might have thought we would have a Queen’s Speech that addressed those problems.
	Instead, we have a Queen’s Speech that, as the Prime Minister said, contains as its flagship piece of legislation a Bill on immigration. Since then, an amendment to the speech has demonstrated that the preoccupation of a great majority of Government Back Benchers is with Europe and not issues that directly address the everyday concerns of our constituents. I looked at the Queen’s Speech and at the Prime Minister’s introductory remarks in support of it, and I could not help thinking that although some measures will be beneficial to the economy, the overall tone of its language and the way he introduced it could be profoundly prejudicial to our economic growth.
	Let me start with the proposed legislation on immigration. The Prime Minister said:
	“Backing aspiration means sorting out our immigration system.”—[Official Report, 8 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 25.]
	I cannot think of a more profound slur on the generation of migrants who came to my area, set up businesses, employed people and promoted economic growth in the
	black country. It is an insult to people such as the modern Polish worker—that demonised character—in David Manners, the Jaguar Land Rover spares company, which is a small business in my constituency. He uses his ability to speak Russian and Czech to work and find markets abroad for the seller of those parts, and last year he created £200,000 in extra contracts for his local company. The comments are also an insult to other countries and a repudiation of would-be students who want to come to the UK, study and contribute—at least for a limited time—to boost our economy.
	We have an expanding world market in bright graduates worldwide. There were more than 4 million in the last academic year, which is increasing by 7% per year. They contribute £8 billion in this country alone. If we really want economic growth, one would think there would be a legislative and market strategy to reinforce the genuine affection that many of those students will have for this country, and their desire to use our first-class education system and research facilities to contribute to universities, local economies and the national economy.
	In another quote—I cannot resist this one—the Prime Minister stated that
	“from India to Indonesia, from Brazil to China. We must forge new trade deals that will bring new jobs and greater prosperity. We must use our commitment to open economies, open Governments and open societies to support enterprise and growth right across the world.”—[Official Report, 8 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 22.]
	That is at the same time as he introduces immigration legislation with the most inflammatory language, and while his Back Benchers are totally preoccupied with a policy in Europe that will marginalise us in that market.
	I would like to go into these issues in more detail, but time prevents me from doing so. The core message, however, is that the headline issue in this Queen’s Speech, and the subsequent reaction of Conservative Back Benchers, is damaging to economic growth, which is the underlying issue that must be addressed to help the people of this country.

Charlie Elphicke: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) who is the true voice of the Labour party, particularly in his refreshing directness—we do not hear enough these days of the Labour party’s belief in open-door, unchecked migration to this country. My constituents in Dover and Deal raise migration on the doorstep time and again and say they are concerned.

Adrian Bailey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Charlie Elphicke: I will give way in a moment. My constituents know that 5 million people in this country could work but do not—

Adrian Bailey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will give way very shortly after he has made those comments.

Charlie Elphicke: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
	My constituents feel that 5 million in this country could work but do not. They ought to have more investment and opportunity, and more chances to fulfil their potential. That is why the reforms to welfare to make work pay, the reforms to the skills agenda, the reforms to control migration, and the reforms to control, police and secure our borders are important—they give our fellow citizens more of a chance to do well and succeed in life, and to see their potential unleashed.

Adrian Bailey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for belatedly giving way. His response to my speech—he has attempted to put words in my mouth that I did not say—demonstrates the exact problem within the Government. They are prejudicial and damaging to the carefully constructed and reasoned debate on immigration that we need in order to get a policy that suits our economy.

Charlie Elphicke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I have set out my concerns on behalf of my constituents, who raise immigration on the doorstep time and again. They simply say to me, “I want my sons and daughters to have a chance. I want to be able to get a job, do well and succeed in life.” The Conservative party is the party of aspiration and success, and the party of realising the potential that each and every one of us has. I support the Government’s reforms.
	I also support the Government’s reforms on tax avoidance and evasion. Let us imagine the Labour party’s response if the Government doubled income tax and let “their chums” in big business off the hook. There would be howls of rage, and accusations that the Government are on the side of the rich and attacking the poor—accusations that they are latter-day sheriffs of Nottingham—but that is exactly what happened in 13 years of Labour government. Income tax receipts went up by 81%. The working people of this country were soaked with Labour party taxes. Meanwhile, leaving aside oil duties, corporation taxes went up by only 6%. Such is the legacy of the prawn cocktail offensive, representatives of which are in the Chamber.
	The Labour Government sold the pass on fair and open competition for smaller businesses in this country in favour of large multinationals. People who work hard for a living were hit with high income taxes while large businesses were allowed to avoid taxes on an industrial scale. That is the legacy of 13 years of Labour. I am delighted that the Chancellor and the Queen’s Speech rightly take action on that.
	YouGov polls show that 62% of the public consider legal tax avoidance—it is all perfectly legal, is it not?—to be unacceptable. A ComRes poll has found that 84% agree that the Government should crack down on tax avoidance by businesses operating in the UK. Indeed, 60% are prepared to call the bluff of every large corporation that threatens to disinvest from the rich, highly vibrant and successful UK market, saying that the Government should crack down on business tax avoidance even if it caused unemployment and caused some companies to leave the UK.
	That is how strongly the British people feel. I feel strongly, and I was delighted to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) does, too. The Government are right to deal with the legacy of tax
	avoidance on an industrial scale. They are right to tackle the problem as an international problem, requiring international action. I therefore welcome the Chancellor’s use of the UK presidency of the G8 to take collective action to deal with tax avoidance and evasion.
	In particular, we need to reform tax presence. The idea that Amazon is based in Luxembourg defies reality to the ordinary person. They look askance at Amazon warehouses from the motorway and just do not buy the idea that Amazon is based in Luxembourg. The rules need to be updated to cope with the globalised, competitive, internet-enabled world in which we live.

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. As well as welcoming the Government’s initiative on tax evasion and tax avoidance, will he join me in lamenting the fact that criminal convictions for tax evasion plummeted to 107 in the last year of the previous Government?

Charlie Elphicke: Absolutely. We need to send a clear message that everyone should pay a fair share of taxes. We have had too much unfairness for too long.
	It is also important to reform the rules on transfer pricing. Starbucks has been the whipping boy for something that is done on a consistent basis by all large international businesses—accountants call it “supply chain optimisation”. Action to tackle it would be fiercely resisted, but it is something we should do. It is not right that profit parking by international tax planners means that our Exchequer does not receive its fair share.
	Part of the agenda must be a positive, engaging discussion with the European Union where we say, “Look, these are the reforms we need.” I am pleased to see that the Chancellor has been getting the Germans on board and talking to the French. Indeed, he should talk to the US, because it too is losing tax revenues. Profits that should go back to the States get parked in tax havens, so Uncle Sam loses out as well. This is an international problem that needs to be dealt with internationally.
	In Europe, a key reform must be to look again at the parent subsidiary directive, which a German MEP recently described as the heartland of tax avoidance, and which is too often abused. We need to ensure that the EU works positively with member states to help to secure their tax bases. The public finances of every member state in the EU are under pressure. Every member state in the EU should see it as in their interest to take effective, international co-operative action to deal with this problem that we all face. It is high time we stood up to large international businesses and said, “We have to secure our tax base.” We have to secure a fair deal for each individual who is living in this country, so that they pay a fair share of income tax while large international corporations pay a fair share of corporation tax. We must ensure that there is a level competitive playing field for home-grown businesses, just as much as there is a level competitive playing field for international businesses. That would be the right settlement and tax framework for the UK and all our European neighbours.

Geoffrey Robinson: I think that some of us who have sat through this debate find it regrettable that, to a large extent, it has been hijacked by the obsessively anti-European faction in the
	coalition parties. It is not that Europe is not important, but the debate is about the Queen’s Speech and a reflection on the Government’s record after three years in office. Rather than intruding on the private grief of Government Members caught up in their internal and agonising debates, I would much rather say to those on the Treasury Bench that, in all seriousness, they have to face up to the fact that after a full three years in office they are responsible for the economy: they are responsible for the situation we are in, and they are responsible for getting us out of it. Unless they accept that responsibility, they will never accept the measures that are necessary to find a way out of the chronic situation in which we still find ourselves.
	Three years ago, after only a few months into office and after they brought in the cuts that went too far and too fast, the Chancellor was already crowing that the plan was working and the recovery was on track. We know what the recovery was meant to achieve: central to all economic policy is growth. In the three years to date, we were meant to have achieved 6% growth, but have achieved only 1.1%. I wonder whether the Government realised that what they were committing themselves to, and which after three months they thought was working, would achieve only one-sixth of their central economic objective. Those who have doubts about whether they should change course should reflect on that. Had they realised what that would achieve, they would never have embarked on it. The only way forward is to change course. Of course, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) pointed out, to do that would mean going back on so much of what they proclaimed to be absolutely essential, and that is impossible for them to do.
	Time is limited for all Members, so I want to concentrate on just two aspects of economic policy where the Government’s incompetence and failure is hard to explain. The first is investment. What the Government call the national infrastructure plan has been variously described by conservative organisations as “hot air”, “complete fiction” and, by the chairman of the CBI, as “lacking all delivery”. Where does this leave investment? One cannot understand the Government’s failure, because there is no cross-party debate on investment or conflict over it. Less still is there any doctrinal argument such as we have on economic growth or financial policy—on the components, predictors or causal factors of, say, bond yields in 30 years and so on. Everybody in the House I have ever heard speak on this has said, “We must have more investment,” because traditionally the UK has not invested in R and D or fixed equipment and plant as much as we should have done or as much as our competitors. There is no argument about that.

Stephen Barclay: I am struck by the hubris of the hon. Gentleman, who is a former Paymaster General. The report on the extension of the private finance initiative by the Public Accounts Committee, which is chaired by a Labour Member, found that the previous Labour Government wasted more than £1 billion. Half, or more, of the PFI projects in the housing sector came in at double their original budget. He needs to accept his party’s record on major infrastructure projects.

Geoffrey Robinson: Here we go again. I do not know of any major infrastructure project that has not run over budget. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield
	(Mr Sheerman) said, let us see what happens to HS2. They all run over budget. Some terrible PFI deals were done—there is no question about it—but all Government Members ever do is say what Labour did badly. We have admitted that we did many things badly. We failed on certain things, but it will not help to get the Government’s plan going to say, “Oh, look what you did when you were in office.” Nothing could be more pathetic. That is what I am trying to get through to the Government. They are now in charge, and they now have to face up to their own failures and the things that need to be done to put them right.
	I come now to what those things are. I have mentioned how the Government budgeted for 6% growth, but in fact have achieved about 1% growth. It could not get much worse than that. Under their national infrastructure plan, they have about 567 projects in the pipeline, ready to go, but in three years they have achieved seven of them, or 1.2%. Everyone agrees that these projects are good ideas, so why can they not get these things done? We own one of the banks outright—I shall come to the banks in a moment—and we have a substantial stake in another, but the Government have created their own business bank. It could be investing in some of these projects, but against a background in which bank lending to businesses has fallen by £4.8 billion in the last quarter alone, they are offering £300 million through the British business bank. It is no wonder they are not getting the projects through. It is no wonder they are failing.

Stephen Barclay: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, who is a senior Member of the House, he is just not engaging with the facts. Public investment as a share of GDP will be higher on average over this Parliament and the next Parliament collectively than under the last Government. On housing, which was my previous example, his party’s record was absolutely shocking, whereas our build to rent fund is addressing some of these issues. Action is being taken. He is ignoring his own record as a former Treasury Minister and the action that this Government are taking. It is remarkable.

Geoffrey Robinson: The Chancellor produces that tired statistic every time we mention investment. Let us take construction. The last time the level of house building was this low was in the 1920s. Overall, the level of construction has fallen 11% in the last year. This is against a background of a chronic need for the jobs and growth that investment can supply. We need a major uplift in the level of investment. It is higher, marginally, than it was 10 years ago, but so it ought to be. It is pathetic that they continue not to face up to the reality of the failure of their own programme. As long as they do not, they will not succeed. Would the hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) really have embarked on this plan if he had known that, instead of 6% growth, we would end up three years down the road with 1% growth? Would he? Of course not: nobody on the Government Benches would have done that, and if they had, they would have needed their brains tested—perhaps they need them tested anyway. That is the truth of it.
	Then we come to the failure of Merlin and the question of the banks. Instead of making the Royal Bank of Scotland a national bank to invest in such projects, all the Government want to do is flog it off
	ahead of time. That will be another failure to add to the long list. This is a Government of failure who will not admit it, and therefore they will not put things right.

Mike Thornton: May I say that just a few months ago I could only have dreamt that I would be able to follow such a distinguished and respected Member of the House as the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson)?
	Hon. Members will be glad to know that I will be brief—I will also talk about something other than our coalition partner’s internal difficulties over Europe. My e-mail inbox—like, I imagine, everyone else’s—is filled with demands that we spend more on the health service, education, defence and so on. However, to be able to do so in the current budgetary situation requires the economy to grow faster than spending. Otherwise, the resultant increase in debt would act like a massive anchor on a ship, bringing the SS Great Britain to a shuddering halt and leaving it vulnerable to the international winds and tides of financial misfortune.
	I want to consider five fundamental issues, which I think the coalition is addressing. They are: jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs and jobs. Let me deal first with jobs in our small and medium-sized businesses. We are putting in place £2,000 for each business to help them to take on new staff. They include businesses as diverse as SPI Lasers, Oswald Bailey and La Fenice in my constituency. We are looking at helping young people to get jobs. Already, 1.2 million apprenticeships have started. In Eastleigh, that has meant a 65% increase in apprenticeships since we came to power.

Luciana Berger: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the unemployment figures came out today and that long-term youth unemployment is now more than double what it was when his Deputy Prime Minister introduced the Youth Contract. Does he think the Youth Contract is therefore working?

Mike Thornton: The Youth Contract still has a few months to go, but I think we can see that it has already been effective, and the March figures demonstrate a return to increasing employment and a reduction in unemployment. What is more, part of our work on apprenticeships is about preventing abuse of apprenticeships. We are setting out a definition of what an apprenticeship is, which will be a significant help in enabling businesses to take on more apprentices.
	We have also seen an increase in jobs in manufacturing, with our continuing commitment to green energy and £5 billion of extra investment in science and high-tech. The electricity market reform alone could support as many as 250,000 jobs in that sector. Then there are jobs in the regions. I am lucky to have a very low rate of unemployment in my constituency, but a £2.6 billion investment in our regions is spurring economic growth in all our constituencies, not just mine. Finally, there are jobs through design. By making it easier for businesses to protect their designs, intellectual property rights will spur further investment in this British success story.
	What do all those schemes mean? They mean more jobs, and more jobs mean a better life for millions of people, which I am sure all of us in this House would like to see. They also mean more revenue for the Government—more funds for the NHS, the disabled and our schools. What is more, the Lib Dem initiative to increase the tax allowance to £10,000—and, hopefully, onwards and upwards—means more take-home pay for every single one of those new employees. If that is what Liberal Democrats can achieve when they are in government as part of a coalition, just imagine what we could achieve with a Lib Dem majority in this place. [Laughter.] If Members want to hear, I will tell them what: a stronger economy and a fairer society, so that everyone can get on.

Emily Thornberry: I should like to begin by belatedly congratulating the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton) on his election to the House. I also congratulate him on his constant optimism. For the sake of the record in Hansard, I must point out how very lonely he must be on the Liberal Democrat Benches. He is largely by himself over there.
	So, here we are after three years of the coalition Government. The early growth that they inherited has been strangled, and the economy is flatlining. We have terrible rates of unemployment, particularly among the young, for whom long-term unemployment continues to increase. Many of those youngsters have no hope. Living standards are being squeezed, and it is more and more difficult for people to make ends meet. Business confidence is dying, and investment is declining as a result.
	The country is crying out for a change and for the Government to do something. People were looking forward to a Queen’s Speech that would show that the Government were prepared to do something, but Her Majesty might as well have stayed at home. The measures in it do not address our economic crisis at all. I am not saying that there is nothing in it for us to welcome. Reform of the Independent Police Complaints Commission is long overdue. We have yet to see what it will involve, but I hope that the commission will be improved. I also hope that a proposal for a register of struck-off police officers will be included in the legislation. I even welcome some of the changes to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
	Apart from that, it is hard to see how this Queen’s Speech will help the country. We need a new plan to tackle the lack of jobs and growth, but it offers us nothing. Do the Government really believe that the draft deregulation Bill will get the economy going again? Do they believe that by snipping away at red tape they will encourage the private sector to rise up like the Incredible Hulk and get the economy working? I do not think that they really believe that. They cannot believe that that is going to save the economy. Surely they do not believe that they can just sit back and do nothing. In circumstances such as these, it is surely the responsibility of the Government to take a lead, but I am afraid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives every sign of being a man who has decided that he cannot afford the loss of face that would inevitably accompany a change
	of course. He cannot afford to expend so much political capital on doing something new, and we are all paying the price as a result.

Henry Smith: I take it that the hon. Lady is suggesting some sort of plan B, as offered by her party. Does she feel that the socialist model that has been pursued by President Hollande in France over the past year has led to success in that economy, given that it has now entered a triple-dip recession, compared with the growth in the UK economy?

Emily Thornberry: The difficulty is that, by carrying on regardless, this Government are killing the economy. I do not have time to go through my bundle of suggestions put forward by various economists, but Paul Krugman has said that the Government’s austerity plan is “fundamentally mad”. I was hoping to have time to read out more such views, but there is not time.
	I would like, however, to use the few minutes that I have to give the Government some advice. They might listen—you never know! How about looking into housing? For example, £30 billion spent on infrastructure investment in housing—particularly affordable housing and social housing for rent—would represent 2% of GDP. The International Monetary Fund has said that the fiscal multiplier resulting from such investment could be between 0.9% and 1.7%, which could boost growth by 2.6% of GDP. That would be a short-term boost, but the TUC recently commissioned the National Institute of Economic and Social Research to look at the effect of such investment over the longer term. That research showed that such investment would continue, three to four years on, to have a positive effect on debt and GDP.
	This is not just about the economy; it is also about fairness. We know that there is not enough housing. We know that people need jobs and training, and that our youngsters need something to do. They need hope. Investment in housing would provide all those things. This Government are building the smallest amount of housing of any Government; they have the worst peacetime record of doing that of any Government since the 1920s. Council house waiting lists continue to grow. If the Government continue at this rate, it will take until 2129 to build enough housing to meet the current need.
	Of course, we know that the Government want to cut back on the benefit bill. They say it is wise to introduce a blanket cap without thinking about how some areas that have a desperate housing crisis will have much higher housing costs. My constituency provides a very good example. If a family of five is living in a three-bedroom house in the private sector in my constituency and someone is unlucky enough to become unemployed, the rent would be £400 a week. The question I wanted to ask the Chancellor earlier—unfortunately, he did not allow me to intervene—was this. If the rent is £400 a week and the cap is £500, what does such a family of five do? Does it live on £100 a week or not pay the rent instead? If the rent is not paid, does that mean the family is intentionally homeless, and if it does, does the council have to re-house the family? If the council does have to re-house them, but there is not enough social housing, where does the family go? Where would the Government suggest these people go? Perhaps they would go to Dover or to some of the marginal seats in outer London. Unfortunately, the Government have no
	idea of where these people should go. The tragedy of the debate so far is that there has not been enough emphasis on fairness.

David Rutley: The Queen’s Speech sets out a positive agenda—one that shows that Government Members are supporting hard-working people who want to get on in life and working to boost our national competitiveness to build the foundations for much needed sustainable economic growth.
	The draft Deregulation Bill rightly focuses on reducing the bureaucratic burden faced by all too many businesses. It is a subject on which I have campaigned long and hard during my time as a Member of Parliament. The Institute of Directors has calculated that the cost of regulation on business in this country is £110 billion a year. That is clearly too high. This Bill will make a difference by exempting from health and safety law the self-employed whose activities pose no potential risk to others. It will also give non-economic regulators a new duty—to have regard to the impact of their actions on growth. These are positive steps for businesses in Macclesfield and across the country.
	Our ability to innovate has always been critical to our competitiveness. That is why it is indeed time to introduce the Intellectual Property Bill. I welcome the fact that the Federation of Small Businesses has said:
	“Streamlining the patent system…will make it more cost effective for small businesses to protect their inventions.”
	The Bill goes further by improving design protection, too. That is good news for this vital part of the UK economy, which accounts for more than 1% of gross domestic product.
	As competitiveness improves, businesses will be better placed to create more jobs, and the national insurance contributions Bill clearly demonstrates the Government’s commitment to this vital task. The new £2,000 employment allowance will encourage in particular small businesses looking to take on more staff, and it will build on the Government’s proven track record of job creation, with over 1.2 million jobs created in the private sector since the election. I am pleased that we have the ambition to go further.
	The Queen’s Speech sets out an important agenda that will improve our national competitiveness, but that ambition does not stop at the English channel—much to the disappointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who is no longer in his place. There is more work to be done within the EU and in wider international markets. As the UK’s competitiveness improves, we need British businesses exporting more. Britain needs to fall in love again with enterprise, entrepreneurs and exporting. Equally, businesses need to be more curious about exploiting opportunities overseas and follow the example of successful SME exporters such as J Tape in Macclesfield.
	Trade associations and chambers of commerce should help raise awareness of the sources of support available to SMEs and they need to make sure that they are out there representing British businesses in vital growth markets such as Brazil and South Africa, where I suspect they are currently under-represented. British businesses should seize the day and make exports our business once again.
	There have been reports in recent days of a real and growing appetite among my Conservative colleagues to address our relationship with the European Union. I can categorically confirm that those reports are true. It is increasingly clear that the public want the issue to be addressed as well. They understand that it is not just about sovereignty, but poses a clear and present danger to our real economy. I am pleased that the Conservative party, alone in the House, recognises that, and will offer an in/out referendum.

Pete Wishart: We have just learnt from The Spectator that the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) is talking about a UKIP-Conservative candidacy at the next general election. How many other Conservative Members are considering that, and does it constitute a new realignment of the right?

David Rutley: Whatever the hon. Gentleman may have read in the paper, and whatever blog may be in existence, there is no plan for any such coalition.

Pete Wishart: Are you sure?

David Rutley: Absolutely. We are categorical about that. We have a very clear plan. We are the only party in the House that is presenting proposals for an in/out referendum, and things will stay that way. On the back of that, I am confident that we can secure an outright Conservative victory.

Angie Bray: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential for us to get the message across that only under a Conservative Government will the country have an EU referendum, and that the referendum will come after we have renegotiated our terms of membership with the EU? That is vital if we are to give people a proper choice and present them with the best options. The draft Bill that was published yesterday underlines that message very clearly.

Mr Speaker: Order. I must gently remind the House that interventions should be brief. A large number of colleagues are still seeking to contribute to the debate, and I am keen to accommodate them, but brevity is essential if I am to do so.

David Rutley: What my hon. Friend has said is absolutely right. It is crystal clear that if the public want an in/out referendum, it is only the Conservative party that will offer them the choice. That is why I support the Prime Minister’s position, and welcome the publication yesterday of the draft referendum Bill. It is entirely proper for the British people to have a right to vote and to make their views heard on this vital issue.
	I am keen to see a fundamental realignment in our relationship with the European Union. Although I am half-Danish, to me our involvement with the EU is about hard-nosed economic benefit, and has nothing whatever to do with some woolly sentimentalism that others may consider important. We are not alone in Europe in wanting to bring about fundamental changes in the European Union. I recently went to the Bundestag and met members of the Christian Democratic Union and the Christian Social Union. It is clear that they too
	have concerns about the future direction of the EU. When the public can see that youth unemployment in Spain is now at 50%, it is clear that new solutions need to be found. That is critical for the United Kingdom, and vital for other member states.
	The Prime Minister’s recent speech has served as an important catalyst in taking forward the debate. Urgent negotiations should follow in the months ahead. A Member asked earlier, from a sedentary position, when those negotiations should take place; they need to start immediately. Given the promise of a referendum, other member states should not underestimate our resolve. When those negotiations have been completed, it will be absolutely right to let the people have their say.
	We are entirely clear and serious in our intent. The plans have been set out, and I hope that other member states will recognise that the clock has started ticking. It is time for action. The Queen’s Speech shows that we are taking action to improve our competitiveness and create jobs at home, and we need to see the same commitment to action in the EU.

Natascha Engel: It is a great pleasure for me to take part in this final day of the Queen’s Speech debate, and to talk about the Government’s plan for economic growth. I have serious concerns about their proposals for the big infrastructure project HS2, which will mean that high-speed trains will go through the northern part of my constituency, just south of Sheffield—through Staveley, Killamarsh and, in particular, the village of Renishaw.
	My main objections are to the lack of information for, and consultation with, the people whom the project will affect; the lack of a coherent economic case beyond a vague promise to open up the regions; and the lack of any real information about that economic case, when £800 million of taxpayers’ money has already been spent on preparatory work, and preparation is currently being made, in the two Bills that are to come before Parliament, for the spending of at least a further £33 billion.
	Some of the things I am most concerned about, however, are the complete lack of understanding about people’s lives and the communities in which they live, and the fact that regeneration projects were blighted on the very day the plans for the HS2 route were published. Even though nothing will happen in my part of Derbyshire for 20 years, people are already finding it almost impossible to sell their homes, and businesses are starting to suffer. The main business and employer in the village of Renishaw is a fabulous wedding venue for people all around south Yorkshire and northern Derbyshire. It is very famous and has been operating for many years. Even though it is 20 years before anything may or may not happen, people are already cancelling weddings there simply because of the uncertainty.
	The Chesterfield canal project, which regenerates very poor parts of the constituency, has also been operating for decades. The HS2 tracks will go right over the canal, and any match funding raised for the development of the canal has already stopped. These are important economic regeneration projects that have been stopped in their tracks because of the publication of a train line route, which has not even been finalised yet, let alone built.
	This is not a “not in my backyard” argument. The tracks will go right through families’ houses, and through villages in which people have lived for many generations. They will not benefit from HS2, as the train does not stop in Derbyshire, but the HS2 project will stop all the regeneration and economic gains we have been making since the closures in the coal and steel industry.
	That is not the only thing that is of concern to me. This is feeding into a far wider political problem. We say we represent these people, but they say they are not being consulted and not being allowed to have a say. In fact, we are saying we know better than they do what is good for them, but in this case we do not. I urge the Government to consult, persuade and explain, and to listen to all these people whose lives we are proposing to destroy. Until we do so, I will oppose these plans.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I was going to call a Government Back Bencher, but none appears to be seeking to catch my eye at present. I therefore call Mr Michael Connarty.

Michael Connarty: I am very grateful to be called to contribute to this debate, particularly since some Members have decided to put Europe, which is one of my interests, firmly on the agenda.
	This debate should be framed in the context of a paper passed by the Council of Europe in the last year entitled “The young generation sacrificed”, and the follow-up papers in which I have been involved. They address educational needs and opportunities for young people, the need for technical training and skills, and the right of youth to fundamental rights and access to a better life, because that is the generation we have stolen from as a result of our errors both in this country and across the EU. We should measure our Government’s wider performance alongside how that generation is treated.
	In the European context, I have spent two days in Brussels and the Netherlands with the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), and others. I was astonished at the extent to which not just the EU but the eurozone are straitjackets preventing growth. We met Olli Rehn, Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs, who had a blueprint, put forward on 5 December. We also met Herman Van Rompuy—one more president of Europe—who put forward a blueprint for a deep and genuine economic and monetary union in December 2012. On 29 January 2013 José Manuel Barroso, the other current president, spoke at a European conference in support of Van Rompuy’s blueprint, saying it was the only way forward. However, what it was, in fact, was a constraining arrangement in economics—in countries’ banking systems and budgets—as the Chair of the ESC said. The arrangement would be contracted and would have penalty clauses, and it would punish Governments who are already in dire straits, and the people of their countries, for not coming up to what are, in fact, the aspirations of the northern European countries, who are making so much out of the European arrangement at present.
	In fact, the statistics showed that we had a growth-free, recession-bound EU, and alongside it we have a growth-free, austerity-choked UK economy. As we have heard, even in these times, our deficit against the EU has gone up to £72 billion, which represents more than £1.25 billion every week. These countries are in a bad condition, but we are still in a worse condition. Oddly, the G7—our Prime Minister was there—reported how happy it is with the arrangements for the EU to continue to squeeze and choke these people, but that contradicts what the Chancellor said today. What he said about the ECOFIN meeting suggests that there would appear to be an argument against how the EU is performing and constraining people. I do not know who is telling the truth—was he just making his speech because of the leadership bid in the background, was he playing to the dissidents on his Back Benches, or was he genuinely saying that an attempt is being made in Europe to unlock that terrible arrangement set up in response to the eurozone crisis?
	The crisis is a eurozone one. Everyone we spoke to did not talk about the countries in the south being a danger to the EU; they said that they were a danger to the euro. The euro has become the symbol of what they are doing to others to punish them, because the euro is more fundamental than the European project, and that really worries me. There is a growing meanness of spirit in what is being talked about in the EU: people are to be punished because the euro is being threatened. That is very strange, and it is certainly not what I voted for when I voted yes in the referendum to join the EU. There are serious questions to answer here, because I do not think the renegotiation being talked about by the Prime Minister has anything to do with that—it is on the fringes. His renegotiation is to do with justice and home affairs and Schengen agreements; it is not about the fundamentals of the European project, which is now an economic project driven by the euro and not by the interests of the people of Europe.
	I wish to remark on some things in the Queen’s Speech, one of which is apprenticeships. We must be frank about them. Apprenticeships are now talked about by McDonald’s, which has them—in-service training for six months constitutes an apprenticeship. Tesco and Sainsbury’s say that they have apprenticeships, too, but these are not apprenticeships. The reality is that 60% of the skills shortages are in non-graduate technical skills—we are not training proper apprentices to do the jobs that need to be done.
	Secondly, my constituency contains a large petrochemical industry that is losing money hand over fist; it is burdened by massive energy taxation that is not paid by the rest of the world, and even has a 5% to 10% disadvantage against the EU. What is there in the Queen’s Speech to remove those burdens from our industries to let them take people on? If those burdens are not addressed, we will not deal with the problem in the beginning, that of the youth who have been betrayed by this Government and, basically, by the European project.

Kelvin Hopkins: First, may I say how much I enjoyed the speeches of the hon. Members for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and for Redcar (Ian Swales), and their comments on tax evasion and tax avoidance? I have been raising those issues for more than a decade in
	this House, and we are now starting to take them seriously. If we collected the tax that is owed, we would go a long way towards solving any spending problem we have. The speech made by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) was also first class, and I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) said as well.
	I want to focus on the economy. Clearly, austerity is failing, and I was among those who predicted its failure. Early in the life of this Government, I quoted Paul Krugman and his view that the Government were going in precisely the wrong direction. What Britain needs is a reflationary programme, not austerity, with a boost to public spending in specific target areas. We have 2.5 million people unemployed, so it is logical that additional spending should be directed to areas of high labour intensity: construction and the public services, which are precisely the areas that have suffered the most savage Government cuts. Construction output has fallen by 12% since 2010 and by 20% since 2008, and thousands of jobs have been cut in the public services. Jobs in construction and the public services have the added advantage of pumping additional economic demand primarily into the domestic economy, so maximising the reflationary multiplier effects to boost growth. Reducing unemployment quickly and substantially will cut the bill for benefits, raise tax revenues and bring down the Government’s spending deficit into the bargain. Moreover, the kind of jobs created by such a programme will go to those whose marginal propensity to consume is high, thus putting their newly increased income straight back into the economy as they spend their new wages. If, indeed, additional borrowing is required—it may not be required if we just collect the taxes we are owed—the kick-start should not be expensive. I do not think reflation will be a problem. Interest rates are in any case very low so the costs of borrowing are also very low.
	There is, however, a serious problem with such a reflationary programme. Although construction and the public services have minimal import content, meaning that additional spending goes initially into the domestic economy, the additional spending will quickly begin to suck in imports and Britain already has a massive and growing trade deficit, largely with the rest of the EU. The figures are stunning. We had a deficit on the current account in 2012 of minus £57 billion, up from minus £20 billion the year before. The goods deficit was more than £106 billion in 2012, more than £2 billion a week. The bulk of this deficit is with the EU 27 and rose from £4.8 billion in January this year to £5.1 billion in February, on course for a deficit of more than £60 billion this year and possibly £70 billion, as was said before. This is a massive problem.
	There is a goods deficit with the rest of the world too, up to £4.3 billion in February from £3.4 billion in January, so the deficit is not just with the EU, but the EU is the major problem. Britain therefore has a desperate trade problem that can be solved only by rebuilding and expanding the UK manufacturing sector. It is a shocking fact that manufacturing as a proportion of GDP in the UK is half that in Germany, and it is no surprise that we have a gigantic trade deficit specifically with Germany.
	This phenomenon is not new, of course. I have with me a copy of a pamphlet published 24 years ago by the Institute for Public Policy Research called “The German
	Surplus”. Even then, there was a massive problem that had grown quickly over that decade. It was just such trade imbalances that Keynes knew would cause economic damage and, if they were not addressed, would ultimately cause serious economic and political tension between economies and between nations. The 1944 Bretton Woods conference decided to provide for essential devaluations by deficit countries, and Keynes proposed too that countries with large trade surpluses should be required to revalue their currencies. The latter proposal was rejected by the US, but the necessity of appropriate exchange rates was recognised. This is why the euro is such a disaster and is doomed to fail.
	Mercifully, Britain avoided the euro trap and is able to flex its exchange rate. However, it is glaringly obvious that we need to depreciate our currency to become competitive again and to maintain an appropriate exchange rate so that we can rebuild our manufacturing industry. We have seen manufacturing deteriorate over several decades and we need to reverse that trend.

Henry Smith: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for unexpectedly calling me in this debate. It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Members for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), both fellow members of the European Scrutiny Committee. I very much enjoy the time we spend on that Committee, the worthwhile discussions and debates and the evidence that we take from witnesses. However, on this occasion I disagree with them both about our economic growth.
	Listening to some of the contributions earlier this afternoon from the Opposition Benches, including the remarks of the former Paymaster General, the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), one would be forgiven for thinking that this country had not been left with the highest peacetime deficit that we have ever witnessed in our history. It is remarkable that in three relatively short years not only has that deficit been paid down by a third, but we see economic growth starting to come through. Compared with our competitors—France has gone back into negative growth and back into recession and Germany has seen economic growth of only 0.1%—the latest growth figure of 0.3% is a remarkable testament to the very difficult and invidious decisions that this Government have had to make in clearing up the crisis that was left by the Labour Administration.
	Fortunately, evidence of economic growth is coming through in my constituency. Today’s unemployment statistics in Crawley showed that in April unemployment fell to 3.4%, although I appreciate, as someone who has previously been unemployed, that it is 100% of a problem for each individual who makes up that statistic. That figure represents a fall on the previous month, and a fall on this time last year. Earlier this year, I was honoured to open a new production line at Vent-Axia in my constituency, which represented jobs coming back to Crawley from China—a sign of growing confidence in the British economy. I congratulate Gatwick airport on its significant infrastructure investment of £1 billion to upgrade its terminals, making that an attractive international trade destination, which is to the benefit not only of my local economy but of the UK economy.
	In the brief time I have, I want to touch on the issue of the eurozone and the future of the EU, and the significant drag that that has had on this country’s economic growth. It is an example of a political project, which essentially is what the EU is, rather than largely an economic project, which is what it should always have been. The resulting eurozone crisis means that demand in the eurozone is down and therefore demand for British goods is down. Despite that, our Government’s performance in engendering economic growth is remarkably impressive. I was pleased in the last Session to serve on the Growth and Infrastructure Bill Committee, and am pleased to see in the Queen’s Speech further measures to reduce regulation and burden on business. If we give the people of this country a choice on our future membership of the EU, we can further free ourselves to ensure that economic growth and our competitiveness as a global, free-trading nation, a bridge between our historic links in the Commonwealth and our proximity to Europe, will mean that this country has a far brighter future.

Pete Wishart: In the few minutes available to me, I want to confine my remarks to amendment (b). When the history books are written and we come to the chapter that describes and explains the UK’s exit from the EU, this week will go down as an important and significant week. After this week, the UK’s departure from the EU becomes almost unstoppable.
	The UK, already a surly, sulky, semi-detached member of the EU, always available to offer some withering criticism to one of its few remaining allies within the EU, already halfway out of the exit door, is like some sort of staggering drunk looking for the oblivion of last orders, on its way out chanting, “We are the famous United Kingdom. No one likes us. We don’t care.” That is the reality of the UK within the EU. Its exasperated, declining number of allies in the EU do not know whether to boo, cheer or sing hasta la vista, such is the state and condition of the UK’s membership of EU.
	It is clear that the UK is on its way out. It will either be out on the basis of the salami-slicing favoured by the Prime Minister—let us renegotiate a new terms of entry, which will obviously be rejected by most of its European allies—or, more likely, it will be wrenched out following the yes/no referendum plan by the Government, in a sort of in-your-face Barroso gesture from the UK electorate. What we actually have is an irresistible momentum for the UK to be taken out of the EU.
	Of course, the EU was not even mentioned in the Queen’s Speech—that now appears to be an unfortunate oversight—but it is centre stage, because we are entering a new Session of Parliament, the UKIP session. It is the age of Farageism, a desperate creed characterised by an obsession with departure from the EU and with immigrants. It is an unpleasant, intolerant, neoliberal creed with a disdain and hearty contempt for minorities. That is what will underpin this Session of Parliament, because the Government know that UKIP will win the next European election.
	That is not my country and I do not want it. I want my country out of all that. My country is very different. The reason UKIP does not do well in Scotland, and the reason there is the lone panda of one Conservative
	Member in the Scottish Parliament, is that that agenda simply does not chime with the collectivism and the social attitudes and values of Scotland. That is why UKIP got less than 1% of the vote in the most recent Scottish parliamentary elections. I am proud that my country is so different from the one we observe south of the border. I hope that England and the rest of the United Kingdom do not go down that road, but they are entitled to have the Government they vote for, just as my nation is entitled to the Government we vote for.
	There is now the real prospect of a party whose members the Prime Minister refers to as fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists having a share in the running of the United Kingdom. What will the Government do to ensure that does not happen? They have tried to name-call and disparage, but that has not really worked, given UKIP’s success in the local elections. They could try to buy UKIP off, but that would not work either. They are absolutely stuffed. My advice to the Government is that they had been doing all right and should have stuck with the hoodie-hugging and huskie-mushing new Conservatism. They simply could never out-UKIP UKIP, which is the master of European obsession and grievance. They should stick to their guns and ensure that they are different from UKIP.
	It used to be said that Scottish independence would lead to Scotland being taken out of the European Union. Not many people are saying that now.

Henry Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman think that an independent Scotland would have to join the euro, or does he want to keep the British pound?

Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman is not on particularly steady ground when it comes to the debate on Scottish membership of the European Union. To answer his question, we will not be joining the euro but instead will follow Sweden’s example.
	The Scottish people are observing two futures. In one future they remain shackled to the United Kingdom, which will become increasingly shackled to an intolerant, right-wing agenda. The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) has already said that she will have a joint UKIP-Conservative candidacy at the next election. I do not know how many more Conservative Members will adopt that stance. What we are seeing is a realignment of the right. All I have heard from the 1922 committee, which has not been very pleasant recently, with all the disagreements about Europe, is that there is a faultline running through the Government. The Scottish people have a choice: they could have that future, or they could have their own future, determined by them and based on their values.

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman is making the case that Euroscepticism is an entirely right-wing view. In fact, across Europe the majority of Euroscepticism is on the left, among socialists, trade unionists and working-class people.

Pete Wishart: That might be true, but that is not how it is being demonstrated politically.
	What we have observed is a total realignment. There are two different countries, and one is emerging south of the border with increasing UKIP results. It is absolutely certain that UKIP will win the next European election,
	and Conservative Members should be very careful about all that. They are right to be wary, because it could deprive them of office. I do not know what will happen, but Scotland has a choice—thank goodness—to do something different. We can remain shackled to an increasingly right-wing United Kingdom, almost relaxed about its continuing decline, or we can decide to have a future of our own, a future determined by the Scottish people, based on our social values and the type of community we want to develop and grow. We can choose to be a consensual and helpful friend in Europe, rather than one that likes to criticise, is semi-detached, does not really enjoy being there and is on its way out. Thank goodness we have that choice.
	I know the type of future that my fellow countrymen and women will choose. They will opt to ensure that their future is in their hands. They will determine the type of Scotland they want: a Scotland standing proud in a coalition of nations around the world. That is the country I want and I am absolutely certain that that is what my fellow Scots will choose next year.

Jack Dromey: This is a Queen’s Speech that does not begin to rise to the challenges facing our country, that lacks ambition and that is so thin in content it could have been written on the back of a fag packet, had the Prime Minister not given in and shelved plans for plain packaging of cigarettes. It was vetted by a dubious Australian spin doctor, who deleted any reference to a measure on curbing the activities of lobbyists.
	This is a Queen’s Speech from a failing Government presiding over the toxic combination of a flatlining economy and the biggest housing crisis in a generation. House building is down and housing completions are at their lowest since the 1920s. Homelessness is up; it fell 70% under Labour and has risen 30% under this Government. We have a mortgage market in which young couples in particular struggle to get mortgages, and a rapidly growing private rented sector characterised by insecurity over quality and ever-soaring rents.
	I see first hand in my constituency the consequences of the Government’s failure, including the lengthening queues at my surgery of couples desperate to get mortgages and couples desperate to keep a roof over their heads. A building worker in Kingstanding burst into tears when he said he was desperate to get back to work, but could not do so—80,000 building workers like him have lost their jobs under this Government.

Douglas Carswell: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the answer to this problem might be even more cheap credit—perhaps a British version of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? What does he think we should do to sort out the lack of availability of mortgages?

Jack Dromey: No, I do not believe that we should take the same approach as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in Britain. I will come in a moment to our proposal.
	Three admirable young people in Castle Vale in my constituency told me recently that they were desperate to do an apprenticeship in the construction industry, as
	their dads and uncles had done, but they could not get one. R&C Williams, an excellent local building company, is surviving despite the problems in the construction sector. Nevertheless, its managing director told me that the previously successful companies run by his two best friends have now gone out of business.
	I also see in my constituency the working poor—people on minimum wages and whose wages are being held down and sometimes cut—who end up having to claim housing benefit as their rents go up. It is a startling statistic that 10,000 households a month now go on to housing benefit, because struggling families cannot afford to pay their rent. Such things are pushing up the benefits bill, as is rising unemployment in the west midlands. The number of people unemployed rose in the last quarter by 16,000 to 253,000, which is up by 26,000 over the past year.
	That is why Labour proposes urgent action now. The building of 100,000 homes would put 80,000 building workers back to work, create apprenticeships for young people who desperately want a future, lead to wealth in the supply chain—all those who manufacture bricks, glass and cement—and add 1% to GDP. The lesson of history is that our country has never had sustainable economic recovery after events such as the depression, the war and every recession since the war other than when there has been a major programme of public and private house building, and that is why Labour’s amendment proposes action to do precisely that.

Andrew Gwynne: Is not the set of measures mentioned by my hon. Friend in stark contrast to the Government’s own NewBuy scheme? We were promised that 100,000 families would have access to cheap mortgages, but only 1,500 families were able to take up that initiative.

Jack Dromey: My hon. Friend is right. The Government have a miserable track record of promising the moon and failing to deliver. I will say more about that in a moment.
	There is growing demand for urgent action to stimulate the building of affordable housing from organisations ranging from the National Housing Federation to the CBI. There is a chronic lack of confidence not only in the economy, but in the Government’s housing policies. There have been four “Get Britain Building” launches and 300 separate initiatives, and yet the sorry saga of failure continues.
	We now have Help to Buy. We are in favour of helping people to realise the dream of buying their own home. However, a powerful report by the Treasury Committee described the scheme as “unconvincing” and said that it was likely to push property prices up and unlikely to produce the significant lift in the supply of new homes that is badly needed. There is also the bitter irony that Help to Buy will help millionaires, fresh from their tax cut, to buy a second home worth up to £600,000—an absurd anomaly that stands to this day. There is one law for the rich and one room for the poor because of the bedroom tax.
	That leads me to my concluding remarks. The Chancellor spoke earlier about the need to get benefits down, ignoring the reality that it is soaring rents and unemployment that are pushing benefits up. He has engaged in the most disgraceful debate that divides our country between shirkers and strivers. Only yesterday,
	Lord Freud said in a speech that people affected by the bedroom tax should—I kid thee not—get a job or sleep on a sofa. What would he say to the severely disabled couple who came to see me who can no longer sleep in the same room, but whose son has moved out? Because they have a “spare room”, they have to pay the bedroom tax. It is an immoral tax that will cost the taxpayer more because there will be a higher housing benefit bill as people are pushed out into the private sector and disabled people will be forced to move from adapted homes to unadapted homes that will then have to be adapted by local authorities and housing associations.
	Instead of doing what they should be doing, the Government are seeking to divide the nation. They are driving more and more people into the trough of despair. The essential difference between them and us is this: they divide the nation, we will build one nation.

Margot James: I welcome the Queen’s Speech, especially the Bills that will drive growth and help businesses in my constituency. Manufacturing companies will welcome the capital allowances and companies of a certain size and charities will welcome the national insurance rebate. Everyone, including businesses, will welcome the fairer taxes and the Government’s commitment to tackling corporate tax avoidance.
	I am delighted that the UK is now one of the 10 most competitive countries in the world in which to do business, according to the World Economic Forum. We must capitalise on our improved competitiveness by exporting more to the rest of the world outside the European Union. Our recent success is demonstrated by the two-thirds increase in our exports to China, India and Brazil over the past two years.
	In the debate about our membership of the European Union, some people, including Lord Lawson, have argued that we need to extricate ourselves from the European Union to capitalise on the opportunities in the rest of the world. I disagree with that. We should be capitalising on the opportunities in the rest of the world as well as, not instead of, doing the bread-and-butter business that we already do with the European Union.
	I liken that situation to running a business. I ran a service company for 15 years and we were always trying to balance our efforts to generate new business with the need to look after our existing business. That is always a tension. It is the same for the country. We have 45% of our exports going to the EU, and we need to look after that business in difficult times, but at the same time we need to go after the new business. That is why, out of the top 20 markets that UKTI is prioritising for Government support for exports, only one, Poland, is in the EU. All the rest are in the rest of the world, and that is as it should be.
	The EU is fundamentally about the economy, growth, improving competitiveness and jobs. Throughout Europe, we need to improve our competitiveness. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said earlier, Chancellor Merkel stated at the beginning of the year that Europe accounts for 7% of the world’s population and 25% of its GDP, yet 50% of its social spending. That cannot go on in the EU and Britain.
	The Prime Minister’s strategy of negotiating a new settlement with the EU and a change within it, has to be about improving the competitiveness of all member states. There has already been some success over the past two years. Britain has been extricated from the EU bail-out funds, we have a better policy on fisheries, we have managed to make some progress on the EU budget—not as much as we would like, but at least we have had no real-terms increase in the multi-annual financial framework for the first time ever—and there is starting to be some movement on regulation.
	Regulation is a key matter. I am talking about not just employment law but all regulation. Businesses in some areas of my constituency are considering relocating their manufacturing outside not just the UK but the EU as a whole to become more competitive, and that problem has to be tackled. However, we will not tackle it by rubbishing the Government’s strategy of reforming the EU, which is the path that many in the press want to lead us down. We should give the Prime Minister our backing, because his strategy rests on change being delivered throughout the EU—change that will benefit all member states, not just Britain. That is the basis on which our strategy of negotiating change in the EU will succeed.

Yvonne Fovargue: There may have been concentration today on a certain topic in the Queen’s Speech, but in Makerfield it is the economy, the cost of living and jobs that concern my constituents the most. Without confidence in the economy and job security, they will not spend, and without spending the economy will not thrive. I stress that there need to be real jobs with real opportunities. When I last checked the universal jobmatch site, 45 of the 67 sales jobs that were advertised within 10 miles of Wigan were self-employed catalogue distribution jobs, many of which demand an up-front fee.
	lp;&5qI welcome the consumer Bill of Rights, which has been proposed to simplify and consolidate consumer law. If people are to spend, it is important that they are free from misleading and aggressive practices and have access to proper redress if they have been ripped off. They should not have to go through tortuous legal processes because of grey areas. Last year, Citizens Advice found that three quarters of consumers had had a problem that was covered by existing consumer rights, and 94% of them had complained but only 10% were successful. Improvements are needed, and I hope that the consumer rights Bill will be amended so that consumers understand their rights, are clear about what to expect and are given a time scale within which they can expect redress.
	One notable omission from the consumer rights Bill, and from the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, is action on lead generators and the marketing texts that people receive. Some companies, particularly in the high-cost credit sector, for example Cash Lady, do not provide the service themselves but simply gather details and pass them on to lenders. The consumer is often not aware who their lender is until they get the paperwork. They do not know whether the company from which they are buying is in a trade association or has a code
	of practice that they can use if there is a problem. They think they are taking out a loan with one company when they are actually taking it out with another.
	The consumer Bill of Rights aims to provide transparency, which I would like to see extended to all products and services. Particularly in the high-cost credit sector, consumers do not always know the full implications of their agreement. How many, for example, would agree to a continuous payment authority if they knew that it gave the lender unlimited powers to dip into their bank account at any time and for any amount? Such a power also militates against the rigorous affordability checks required.
	Another area contributes hugely to the strength of our economy but is often overlooked: the humble bus. A excellent report was launched this week by Pteg entitled “The case for the urban bus”, and it describes the contribution that buses make to the economy. Bus networks generate more than £2.5 billion in economic benefits, about £1.3 billion of which reflects user benefits from access to jobs, training, shopping and leisure opportunities. The remaining £1.2 billion of benefits accrues to other transport users and society at large through decongestion, reduced pollution, lower accident rates and productivity. The overall economic benefits are around five times higher than the amount of public funding going to the bus networks, and the bus industry has a turnover in excess of £5 billion, much of which is ploughed back into regional economies through the supply chain and consumption expenditure by staff.
	Public expenditure on bus networks is therefore likely to have a large and direct impact on regional economic growth. It helps the economy by contributing to flexible labour markets and by increasing the number and range of jobs accessible to workers, in particular less-skilled workers who are likely to have less access to a car. However, the bus service operators grant has been cut, and there are fears that it might be under threat in the next spending review. Instead of salami slicing the BSOG—an easy target—I urge Treasury Ministers to read the report and recognise the contribution that the bus makes to the economy. It might be the Cinderella of the transport service, but it is used by the highest numbers of our constituents—more than any other mode of transport—and we must look at the benefits that the service accrues, instead of cutting it willy-nilly.

Shabana Mahmood: I am grateful for the opportunity—albeit time-limited and short—to contribute to the debate on the Gracious Speech. We as a country face huge challenges, and those faced by my constituents and the people of Birmingham are acute. My constituents are getting poorer and my constituency has the highest rate of unemployment in the country. Youth unemployment is at 8.4% in Ladywood, and long-term unemployment has gone up. More and more of my constituents are dependent on food banks that operate in my constituency, and my advice surgeries are inundated with people who cannot make ends meet and for whom simply keeping a roof over their heads and putting food on the table is a serious struggle. That is the reality of 21st-century Britain after three years of this Government.
	Given the scale of the challenge faced by the country, and the reality of what the last three years have meant for my constituents, we needed a change of direction in the Queen’s Speech and bold action to kick-start our economy—we desperately needed a jobs Bill. We have an unemployment emergency in this country and there are simply not enough jobs to go around. Instead of acting quickly and decisively as required by such an emergency, the Government are content to trundle along at a pedestrian pace, doing a bit here and not going quite far enough there, as if they have all the time in the world—or, more likely, two years to kill before the next general election.
	My constituents, however, do not have the luxury of time to waste. The Government do not realise that each day one of my constituents remains unemployed there is a clear and present danger to their chances of ever being able to find work, and the longer that goes on, the more likely it is that they will be for ever on the fringes of the labour market. As individuals, my constituents will pay a heavy price, but so will the country. A lost generation is not only a tragedy for those unfortunate enough to be among their number, but frankly it does not come cheap. My constituents were crying out for a jobs Bill—something that would have given a chance of work to young people who have been unemployed for more than a year, and a compulsory jobs guarantee for the long-term unemployed who have been out of work for more than two years. The scale of the challenge demanded that, but the Government failed to deliver.
	I am also disappointed that the Government’s proposals contained no reference to using public procurement to boost apprenticeship places. Again, that is a missed opportunity to put a rocket booster under apprenticeship policy. The Government have real power in the market—they are the UK’s biggest consumer—and should use it strategically and for the good of the country. In March, the Government voted against the Opposition’s plans to use public procurement contracts worth more than £1 million to create apprenticeship places. The Government could make a difference. I do not understand why they will not accept my point and weave it into procurement policy. It is no good them praying in aid EU law, because other European countries have been able to take into account the impact of procurement decisions on the local economic environment and remain within its confines.
	In the absence of an effective, speedy and decisive response to the emergency we face, we in Birmingham are still trying to make a difference. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) deserves special mention for the work she has spearheaded on the Birmingham Labour party policy review of education and skills in our city. The review culminated in a process to create a Birmingham baccalaureate, which will embed in the core school curriculum both generic employability skills and sector-specific skills in areas where Birmingham hopes to grow. I hope that, with the process we have embarked on towards a Birmingham baccalaureate, we can address the skills disconnect in our city, and move to a position in which young Brummies are first in line for the jobs that are created in our great city.
	In addition, the greater Birmingham and Solihull local enterprise partnership and the city council await the spending review in June to see how much money the Government will put into the single local growth fund.
	However, the Government’s approach to regional growth so far has created uncertainty, deterred investment, and held back regional and local economies. I agree that local areas should have the powers and resources they need to get growth going and create jobs, but devolution should not be used as a cover for even deeper cuts.
	I welcome any progress we can make in Birmingham, working with the council, the LEP and other stakeholders to address our skills gap and get more Brummies into work, but we will not achieve the jobs revolution we need without the Government taking bold and decisive action. That is why a plan for jobs and full employment should have been at the heart of the Queen’s Speech. The Queen’s Speech failed to deliver it. My constituents, Birmingham and our country deserve better.

Luciana Berger: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the last day of debate on the Gracious Speech.
	I want to talk about this chaotic Government’s shambolic attempts to revive our flatlining economy. The Government are running on empty. When it comes to the questions the British people most want answered, they have nothing to say. On our flatlining economy, where is the plan for growth? On building more homes, 130,000 construction workers are out of work, but new home completions are at the lowest level since the 1920s.
	What assistance is there for small businesses when 1,600 firms in my constituency are crying out for help? I agree with many of the tax evasion and avoidance concerns raised earlier by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales). When an estimated £120 billion is lost to our economy every year, how can the Government believe that it is a bright idea to slash 10,000 staff from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs?
	On the increase in child poverty, the explosion in food banks and, worst of all, unemployment, I have felt as if I am in a parallel universe sitting in the Chamber today. I remind Government Members that more than 2.5 million people are without a job, and that 900,000 have been without a job for more than a year—the highest long-term unemployment since 1996. That is nothing short of a crisis, but for this Prime Minister, this Chancellor and this Government, it appears that unemployment is a price worth paying. They have not met the 4,100 people in my constituency who cannot find work—more than a quarter of them are young people. It is an abomination that one out of every five 16 to 24-year-olds are not in employment, education or training.
	Labour would rightly offer a guaranteed job for all young people who are out of work for more than a year, paid for by a bankers’ bonus tax. Labour Members understand that spending cuts that push young people into poverty are not savings—they are a cast-iron guarantee of increased welfare spending and higher borrowing, and of an entire generation being thrown on the scrap heap.

Nigel Adams: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Luciana Berger: I would love to take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but I am conscious that there are still hon. Members who wish to speak.
	The Government should be doing everything they can to get people into work—that is what should be keeping the Government up at night. I have been looking closely at those on the Front Bench and I do not see dark circles under Ministers’ eyes. I do not want to see just any kind of work. We need sustainable, high-quality jobs where employees are respected.
	The Queen’s Speech states that the Government are
	“committed to building an economy where people who work hard are properly rewarded.”
	That is an aim I applaud, but it is not the reality for too many of my constituents. We have seen a massive increase in precarious employment: zero-hours contracts, temporary contracts and agency workers. One million people working part time want to work full time, and there is downright exploitation. There can be no clearer example of that than the experience of my constituent Sophie Growcoot. She is 20 years old, and she and her colleagues have been ruthlessly exploited by one of the most well known companies operating in the UK.
	Sophie thought that she had landed her dream job when she was hired to join a Ryanair cabin crew after an intense recruitment process. It was not until she started that she learned she would not be paid for all the hours she put in, only the time when a plane she was working on was in the air. That meant not a penny for every pre-flight briefing she attended, nothing for sales meetings, nothing for turnaround time when a plane was on the ground between flights, and nothing for the hours waiting on the tarmac during delays and flight cancellations. She was only paid for four days each week, and on the fifth day she had to be available on unpaid standby, ready to come in at a moment’s notice but not receiving any payment if not called in. Sophie was told that she had to take three months of compulsory unpaid leave each year, and was forbidden from taking another job during that time. If she wanted to leave within nine months of joining the company, she had to pay Ryanair a €200 administration fee. To add insult to injury, she had to pay a staggering £1,800 to her employer for compulsory training.
	Last year, Ryanair recorded profits of just under half a billion pounds. How can its chief executive, Michael O’Leary, think it is fair or acceptable for his company to be profiting on the back of poorly treated staff like Sophie? As her situation grew worse, Sophie knew that there were no other jobs out there for her.

Graeme Morrice: l have to say that, having listened to the Queen’s Speech last week and the Chancellor today, I am still more convinced that, sadly, the Government’s remarkably thin legislative programme is a further reminder that this is a Government out of ideas, out of touch and just watching the clock tick until the next election.
	How many signs have the electorate got to send before the Government recognise what is very much evident: that they have got it horribly wrong and need to think again before it is too late? The Government’s measures do not go anywhere near far enough in tackling the desperate and growing crisis facing the country. Populist slogans and easy mantras might satisfy narrow partisan audiences, but they do not fulfil the responsibility of government.
	Nowhere is the Government’s insubstantial approach more evident than on their stance on economic growth. That is a matter of great regret. This is the Government’s third Queen’s Speech since the general election and all we have had is three years of failure: low growth, falling living standards and rising borrowing. Despite even manifestly failing their own tests for economic success, the Prime Minister and his Government are ploughing on regardless with a failed economic plan.
	While the Government scrabble around for a coherent agenda, I warmly endorse the overall stance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who has set out what would be in our Queen’s Speech: six Bills with a relentless focus on the economy, clearly demonstrating that growth and jobs are our No. 1 priority. It is sad to see the cavernous gap between the perfectly sensible and laudable proposals outlined in the Opposition’s alternative plans, and the half-hearted and half-baked measures from the Government.
	In reality, the coalition has reached the limits of what the parties can achieve together, so all we get is this minimalist approach with only 15 Bills proposed. What was left out was almost as revealing as what was left in. With just two years to go, the Government have no answers and nothing to say on tackling the crisis in youth unemployment; nothing to back small businesses struggling to get credit; nothing on living standards at a time when families’ energy and other household bills are rising out of reach; nothing on housing at a time when new home completions are at their lowest level since the 1920s; nothing to stop the undercutting of wages by tackling the exploitation of immigrant labour; and nothing on growth.
	I would have liked from the Government a substantial infrastructure programme for social housing. Getting house building moving again, along with home improvements, is one of the biggest catalysts to growth. We also needed something for young people and jobs. We cannot force people into a framework that says, “Work is better for you than welfare,” if there is no work to go into. A jobs Bill would get the 17,000 Scots, for instance, who have been unemployed for more than two years back to work. I want to see cheaper energy too. People are paying too much for their gas and electricity, and living standards are being squeezed. An energy Bill could have tackled rip-off energy companies and ensured that Scotland’s 400,000 over-75s were put on the lowest tariffs.
	This is an uninspired, non-responsive Government who are too dogmatic to admit that they are on the wrong track. They are burying their heads in the sand while our economy struggles and the public suffer. This absentee Prime Minister has no ambition and little drive to change the country for the better. I said at the outset that I thought the Government’s approach might appease some, but now I am not even sure about that. The British people deserve better. They want leadership and decisive action, but all we seem to have is a Prime Minster who used to “agree with Nick”, but who is now “agreeing with Nige”, and, as we have witnessed, a Tory party reverting to type with its obsession with retreating from Europe at the expense of everything else.
	I appeal to Government Members to wake up and smell the coffee; to consider the evidence and listen to our constituents, including hard-pressed working families struggling to make ends meet and the most vulnerable in society; and to devote this time to getting people back to work, getting our economy growing again and bringing the change our country needs. If they will not do that, we will.

William Bain: The country is still in the midst of the longest slump for 140 years. We need to generate 2.6% of GDP and more than 900,000 jobs to match the output and employment rates we achieved before the financial crisis struck. Four years into what should have been a recovery, we have unemployment locked at an unacceptable 2.5 million, under-employment among young people at nearly one in five, construction output falling, the IMF describing Britain’s economy as severely demand-constrained, and the OECD saying that our society is increasingly unequal. Yet what has the country seen in this debate today? It has seen an out-of-touch Chancellor, an isolated and absent Prime Minister, a decaying coalition and a weak Queen’s Speech that cannot meet the aspirations of our people. A governing coalition riven with divisions over Europe, welfare and child care cannot unite the country on jobs and growth.
	The Gracious Address should have contained measures to inject demand into the economy and offer hope to our struggling construction and manufacturing sectors, but instead it simply compounds the Chancellor’s obstinate refusal to use fiscal policy to ease the pressures on ordinary households. Only this morning, the Office for National Statistics revealed that in the first quarter of this year, pay excluding bonuses rose at its lowest level since 2001, at a mere 0.8%. The OBR’s March fiscal outlook reveals that the decline in real-wage forecasts since December would cost ordinary households a further £200 this year, which is more than four times what the Government are handing back through their increase in the personal tax allowance. The squeeze on incomes is tightening its grip on millions of households, and without an easing of that burden by the Government, the day of real recovery will remain far off.
	A Gracious Speech that was focused on the issues of the country, rather than on managing fractures within the coalition, would have contained a jobs Bill to help 2,000 young people in Scotland who have been out of work for more than two years to get back into work.Even with a modest fall in joblessness today, more than 11% of the working-age population in my constituency is unemployed, which is utterly unacceptable. We know from our friends and neighbours the scarring effect that long-term unemployment has on people’s health and, if they can find another job after that period of unemployment, their earnings and job satisfaction. In the UK, 18 to 24-year-olds are now 10% less likely to be in work than they were in 2008. We should be following the successful example of countries such as Sweden with a jobs guarantee—initially for people out of work for two years or longer, but eventually extended to those jobless for a year or more—that would be paid for by a tax on bank bonuses and by limiting the pension tax relief that top rate taxpayers receive to 20p in the pound.
	A Queen’s Speech that was focused on the issues of the country would also have contained a financial services Bill to reform our banks, creating a default power to separate investment banking from retail banking—if needed—to stabilise the economy, and new regional-based banks to boost investment and lending to our small and medium-sized enterprises.
	Families in Scotland are losing £28.63 a week on average through the cumulative effects of this Government’s welfare and wages policies. That should have been addressed in this Queen’s Speech by cutting VAT, to put an average of £450 a year back into the pockets of 67,000 voters in my constituency. There should also have been a consumer rights Bill, to help nearly 6,400 over-75s in my constituency to receive an average £200 reduction in their energy bills this year.
	We need a one-nation Government who will build an economy for everyone in our society, not just—as is increasingly happening—for people at the top. We need that one-nation Government as much in Glasgow as in every nation and region of our United Kingdom.

Dawn Primarolo: I call Andy Sawford to speak. Could I ask you to resume your seat at 6.35 pm to enable the wind-ups to start?

Andy Sawford: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, albeit briefly. It is six months today since I was elected as the Member of Parliament for Corby in east Northamptonshire, which is an incredible honour. Fresh from those doorsteps, I can say that the people in my constituency told me that they wanted action on our economy and action to protect our vital local services. It is to address those areas of policy that they elected me to be their representative, and it is against those priorities that I have considered the Queen’s Speech.
	Since the day I was elected six months ago, 324 more people in my constituency have been made unemployed. Sadly, the Chancellor has ignored the message that he was sent by my constituents. He continues to ignore the impact of his policies on my constituents. When this Government took office, 2,009 people were unemployed in my constituency. That was far too many people, but of course we were coming out of a global economic recession. The figure now stands at 2,852. Youth unemployment, which we know rose after the global economic recession—it was far too high and we were doing everything we could to reduce it, with programmes such as the future jobs fund—stood at 590 in my constituency when this Government took office. The figure is now 770. One more person in my constituency has become unemployed each day in the time that this Chancellor and this Prime Minister have been in office.
	We have heard what keeps the people at the heart of this Government awake at night: they lie awake worrying about how to pay the school fees. Even if the coalition parties do not care about the tragedy of unemployment for the people who are out of work and their families in my constituency and in other constituencies, perhaps they could be encouraged to see the economic folly of their policies. This Government are spending £21 billion more on keeping people out of work, rather than introducing policies that help people to get back into work. I wish that instead of lying awake at night worrying
	about the school fees or the latest factions in the Eurosceptic right, they worried about the young unemployed people and the 2,800 people who are out of work and desperately looking for work in my constituency. I wish the Government would stop stigmatising those people and calling them shirkers, when I know how hard each and every one of them I meet and speak to on the doorsteps or in my surgeries is looking for work.
	After three years, this Government have no answers. They have nothing to say. I wanted to see a jobs Bill that would put in place a compulsory jobs guarantee, a finance Bill to kick-start our economy and a consumers Bill. I also wanted to see measures to deal with the housing market. In particular, had I had more time today, I would have said more about the real potential of co-operative housing solutions. There are already important co-operative models in the rented sector, but we also need to introduce more intermediate market housing.

Christopher Leslie: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) and my many other hon. Friends for their consistently strong arguments about the shortcomings of the Gracious Speech. It is a Queen’s Speech that lacks vision, substance and coherence. It lacks any answers to the big challenges that Britain faces. As such, it is entirely typical of this pitiful excuse for a Government. It is as though they could not be bothered to think through the legislation that is needed to get our economy moving, perhaps because their minds were elsewhere. We know where their minds were. Downing street has been caught in the headlights. It is fixated with internal party management and is frantically trying to hold it all together, when what we really need is a Prime Minister and a Chancellor who can focus relentlessly on the weaknesses in our economy and on the action needed to kick-start growth. They are so distracted, however, that they have lost sight of the things that matter most to the British people.
	Youth unemployment still stands at nearly 1 million, and the Work programme is so useless that the number of young people on the dole for more than a year has tripled since it was introduced. At the spending review in 2010, the Chancellor said that there would be at least 6% economic growth by now, but we have seen barely more than 1%. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, house building is at its lowest level since the 1920s, yet the Government housing scheme offers a better subsidy for second home buyers than for building new homes. The construction sector is collapsing on this Government’s watch, but only seven projects from the list of 576 in their infrastructure plan are actually completed or operational. That is pathetic.
	The Government promised to help 400,000 businesses with a national insurance holiday for new firms, but they have helped barely 5% of them. They are now having to replace that legislation. We are experiencing the slowest economic recovery for more than 100 years, and deficit reduction has ground firmly to a halt. When we hear the Government claim that they have cut the deficit by a third, we must remember that it was the same last year as it was the year before, and that it will be the same again this year. It is no wonder that they have lost the triple A credit ratings that they promised
	to preserve. It is a simple lesson: if the economy is flatlining, they should not be surprised if the deficit stubbornly remains high.
	The Government are either too weak to admit that they have made mistakes or too distracted to see it for themselves. As a result, we are left with a legislative agenda that fails to rise to the challenges facing our country. These Ministers see consumers and businesses that lack confidence and they see weak economic demand, but their Government’s response is to pull back from the role that they should play, pull the rug from beneath the feet of those who are trying to move forward, pull away the safety net from families facing hardship and pull up the drawbridge against the entrepreneurs and investment that our country needs.
	Where is the jobs Bill to ensure that all the long-term unemployed are offered a decent job opportunity on at least the minimum wage, with the private sector in partnership with the Government? We could do all that, and cover the costs, if only the Chancellor would stop being so weak towards the banks and instead make them pay their fair share. Where is the finance Bill to reverse the unfair tax cuts for the richest 1% and to help to make work pay with a 10p starting rate of income tax? Where are the measures that my hon. Friends have so eloquently called for to tackle rip-off energy bills, extortionate train fares and rogue landlords? Where is the action, the drive, the activity? Nowhere, because the Government are frozen to the spot.
	It says everything about the hollowness of this Government that the Queen’s Speech debate today has been totally dominated by one subject that is not even in it. Where once we had a Conservative Prime Minister who boasted of her convictions, tonight we have a Conservative Cabinet united only by their abstention. As that Prime Minister once said, this is not leadership but “followership”. The truth is that this Queen’s Speech is not a legislative programme of a functioning Government; it is a sticking-plaster programme trying desperately to hold things together while Conservative MPs kick lumps out of the Prime Minister.
	A week ago, the Prime Minister did not think that an EU referendum was important enough to put in the Queen’s Speech, but a week later we find that it is the first Bill that the Government have published. If they want a referendum, why are they not supporting the amendment; if they do not want a referendum, why have they drafted their Bill?
	The draft Bill that the Government have rushed out—I do not know whether the Chief Secretary or the Chancellor had a hand in the very technical drafting of the one side of A4—had nothing to do with consulting the public; it was all about silencing the Conservative party’s internal divisions. They are not so much a coalition as a contradiction. There are three parties in this Government: the two faces of the Conservative party in league with the Liberal Democrats—perhaps best represented by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to whom I wish many happy returns today. Hon. Members will be interested to know that this right hon. Gentleman spent a decade of his life before entering this House making the case for a federal Europe. What a triumph it is for the Government Whips facing a difficult vote on Europe that the final speech in support of the Government’s
	programme should come from the former chief spokesman for the campaign to join the euro. You couldn’t make it up, Madam Deputy Speaker. The sad truth is that this Government are too weak, too divided and too distracted; they are fiddling on about Europe while the economy burns.

Pat McFadden: On the subject of the Government’s tactics over the rushed, panicked publication of this referendum Bill, does my hon. Friend agree that today’s debate shows that the tactic has already failed because during the debate the people who wanted this were already asking the Government to go further by having the referendum this side of the general election rather than after the next one?

Christopher Leslie: The Prime Minister said yesterday, “No more concessions; that is the line in the sand; this is as far as they will go”, It is amazing to think, though, that he has to keep feeding the beast. The problem is that Conservative Members are carrying on a bit like the strange man in the corner of that country pub endlessly moaning about the dreadful threat of outsiders and incomers; I have to tell them that if they spend all their time trying to be like UKIP, they should not be surprised when people vote for the real thing.
	We are left with a Government increasingly out of touch with the real problems facing real families across Britain. Tonight, it is those families that are paying the price: higher taxes because growth is stagnant and lower living standards because wages are falling. Every year that goes by while our economy stands still and while our Government are divided and distracted, our international competitors get further and further ahead.
	The Queen’s Speech lists 15 Bills that look as though full time has been called for this Parliament, not just the end of the first half of it. The Government’s legislative agenda, supposedly to drive Britain forward, did not even make it from Downing Street to the Cabinet Office before running out of support. We should look at their child care strategy, stumbling in more directions than a toddler learning to walk. They are not going to convince the public that it is sensible to have one nursery worker looking after six two-year-olds on their own if they cannot even persuade their own Deputy Prime Minister. Surely, the Prime Minister of all people must know how difficult it is single-handedly to watch over a group of immature and disobedient trouble-makers, constantly throwing tantrums. They cannot even manage the basics.
	Just at the moment when we need a strong voice for the United Kingdom arguing for the reforms and change of direction we need across the European economy, we get a Prime Minister saying one thing, an Education Secretary who is not here and a Defence Secretary who is not here saying another, while his Back Benchers are revolting and the Deputy Prime Minister is wielding his veto. Our country and our partners deserve better than that. Britain needs to be leading in Europe, not leaving Europe, and the Prime Minister should be brave enough to say it. He should stand up to those who are undermining his authority. On the very day when he was extolling the virtues of a new EU trade deal with the United States, his own Ministers implied that they would rather turn their backs on that £10 billion advantage.
	The amendment has blown the last semblance of unity in the coalition to smithereens. The Prime Minister could not even tell his own troops to vote against it, so
	we have ended up with the absurd spectacle of Ministers being told to abstain while the Prime Minister is supposedly “chillaxed” about the rest of them supporting it. The Prime Minister should not be relaxed when those on his own side express regrets about his own Government and his own Queen’s Speech; he should be embarrassed by it. He should not “chill” at the thought; he should be chilled by it. He should have led from the start and asserted his authority, but he is too weak, and his party is too divided and distracted to be brought into line.
	The fact is that this in/out, in/out, hokey-cokey referendum policy sends all the wrong signals. The Prime Minister’s party is left leaderless, and the country is left rudderless. Make no mistake, Madam Deputy Speaker: there is a real-world price to be paid for this weakness, and it will be paid in jobs, with inward investors left mystified about whether or not they would have access to a single market with 500 million customers if they came here.
	When will the Conservatives realise that the top priority for this country must be the strength of our economy, not their obsession with Europe? The Prime Minister once said:
	“Instead of talking about the things that most people care about… we were banging on about Europe.”
	They are back to banging on, and on, and on—not about jobs, not about growth, not about recovery, but about Europe, yesterday, today and tomorrow. They are too distracted to see what needs to be done, too divided to agree on how to do it, and too weak to take the action that the country needs. Weak, divided, distracted: we see a Government who are slowly imploding under the weight of their own contradictions.
	Britain, at home and in Europe, needs a Government who are strong enough to make the tough decisions for our country’s future, united in seeing those decisions through, and focused on securing growth and recovery. That is the only genuine way of improving our national finances. Britain needs that one-nation Government and we need it now, but sadly, with this Queen’s Speech, with this Government and with this Prime Minister, Britain must wait.

Danny Alexander: This has been an interesting and, at times, informed debate. Some very good contributions were made in support of the Queen’s Speech, particularly by the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), my hon. Friends the Members for Eastleigh (Mike Thornton) and for Redcar (Ian Swales), and the hon. Members for Stourbridge (Margot James) and for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway). They were a pleasure to listen to on my 41st birthday—and I am grateful to the shadow Financial Secretary for his good wishes. Many Opposition Members spoke against the Queen’s Speech, notably the hon. Members for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who presented their arguments passionately.
	The debate was opened by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—[Interruption.] Of course it was opened by the shadow Chancellor; the Chancellor opened it on behalf of the Government. How could I forget the “busted flush”?
	The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the welcome improvements in United Kingdom growth in the first quarter of the year, noting the contrast with today’s very unwelcome first-quarter figures in France and Germany. Labour Members certainly talk a great deal less than they did a year ago about their French connection. Perhaps they are worried about the fact that “FCUK” is now thought to be an anagram of their economic policy.
	A few of the shadow Chancellor’s colleagues certainly seem to think that he should move on. One senior figure recently said “Balls is a busted flush when it comes to economic credibility.” Given a cost of £28 billion in extra borrowing, the Opposition’s alternative Queen’s Speech is certainly not economically credible, and I urge the House to reject their amendment.
	This Queen’s Speech was motivated by the Government’s wish to create a stronger economy in a fair society, in which everyone can get on in life—

Karl Turner: rose—

Danny Alexander: —including the hon. Gentleman.

Karl Turner: I suspect the right hon. Gentleman remembers that he visited my constituency last year to see the plans for a major new facility for Siemens to manufacture offshore wind turbines. Will he advise his Back-Bench Tory colleagues whether he thinks an in/out referendum would encourage Siemens to say yes or no?

Danny Alexander: I certainly do remember that visit, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for his work to secure that investment, along with many members of the Government, not least my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. The Prime Minister has also worked very closely with Siemens in relation to that. My answer to the question is no, I do not think an in/out referendum or campaigning for Britain to leave the EU is particularly helpful in attracting inward investment of the sort the hon. Gentleman describes.
	The Queen’s Speech contained a number of measures that will help people who want to get on, because the best way of increasing employment, increasing output and increasing growth is by creating a system that helps those who want to offer work and those who want to find work. Our new national insurance allowance will reduce the costs of employment for employers, and especially for small businesses looking to hire their first member of staff or expand their work force. We estimate that the £2,000 allowance in the Bill in question will benefit 1.25 million businesses, most of them small businesses. Our new tax-free arrangements on child care will reduce the cost of employment for employees, putting money back into the pockets of hard-working families and ensuring that it makes financial sense for parents to go out and seek work. The continuation of our reforms on trainees and apprenticeships will go a long way towards addressing employers’ concerns that some young people lack the right skills, attitudes or experience when applying for work. Alongside our much-needed welfare reforms through the introduction of the universal credit, these changes demonstrate that we are creating a society where it pays to find work, and where the Government will help all who want to do so.

Sheila Gilmore: The Chief Secretary and his party leader have chosen to flex their muscles on a couple of issues, including Europe and child care ratios. Can we therefore assume that they support all the other unfair measures on which they have chosen not to flex their muscles, such as the bedroom tax and people losing contributory employment allowance after a year?

Danny Alexander: I have to say to the hon. Lady that I think the fact that we inherited a welfare system where for too many people it did not pay to work is one of the greatest scandals of Labour’s time in government, so I make no apology whatever for reforming the welfare system and putting in place a universal credit where everybody on benefits knows they would be better off in work. That is the right thing for the country, and I am happy to support it.
	The measures in the Queen’s Speech will also help all those workers who want to get on and plan for their futures. Our changes to the single-tier pension will provide millions of people—particularly women with broken work records, the low paid and the self-employed—with a firm foundation to support their saving for retirement. The single tier will be implemented from April 2016, and I am sure Members will join me in congratulating the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), on his excellent work in bringing this policy forward to this stage.
	The Queen’s Speech recognises that if we want our economy to succeed in the 21st century, we need to make significant changes to our business environment. We will not succeed in the 21st century if our businesses are slowed down by regulation, which is why we are taking steps through the deregulation Bill to remove excessive red tape from small businesses and to repeal legislation that no longer serves a practical use.

Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Danny Alexander: I want to make some progress, as I have a few further things to say.
	We will not succeed in the 21st century if our businesses are slowed down by an outdated infrastructure. That is why we are increasing capital investment plans by £3 billion a year from 2015-16, meaning public investment will be higher on average over this Parliament than it was under our predecessors. That investment will help to improve our digital networks and our road and rail networks. We want to connect our biggest cities in a manner fit for modern business needs, and our investment in High Speed 2 will be a crucial investment for British jobs and prosperity. The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) spoke against HS2 partly on the basis that there had been a decline in wedding bookings at an important venue in her constituency. I hope very much the progress of the equal marriage Bill will help raise demand at that venue.
	In a debate focused on jobs and growth, a lot of Members have talked about the subject of Europe, and I have to say that I do not think contemplating British exit from the EU is helpful in supporting jobs and growth in this country. So I would like to remind the House of some of the economic opportunities that we
	gain from our membership of the European Union. Our EU membership supports UK jobs, prosperity and growth through increased trade, both inside the single market and outside, through free trade agreements. One in 10 jobs in this country—3.5 million jobs—are linked to that trade with the European Union. If we want to win the global race, we need to be part of a strong team.

Ian Swales: Is the Minister aware that the number of jobs in the UK has gone up every single year since we joined the EU, except 2009, and went down in eight of the previous 20 years?

Danny Alexander: I was not aware of that fact, but the House will remember what happened in 2009 and who was responsible.
	The single market helps the UK to attract inward investment. As part of the largest single market in the world—it has 500 million people and is worth £11 trillion —the UK hosts more headquarters of non-EU businesses than France, Germany and the Netherlands combined. UK consumers benefit from EU regulatory standards, and the collective voice of EU member states helps to advance UK interests and influence throughout the world, as the US President said only this week.

Bernard Jenkin: What evidence is there that the United Kingdom would be unable to negotiate a free trade agreement of its own with the United States if we were not part of the European Union and that we would not be able to negotiate a free trade agreement with the European Union if we were outside it? The treaties say that the EU would have to do that.

Danny Alexander: I respect the sincerity of my hon. Friend’s position. He has expressed those views for very many years and has done so coherently. As a politician, I believe, however, in breaking down barriers between peoples, not erecting new barriers, and I was making this point at the Scottish Affairs Committee today on the subject of Scottish independence. So of course it would be possible to strike these agreements, but the net effect on the UK economy of such an approach would be much less advantageous than being part of the largest single market in the world. The collective voice of the EU helps to advance UK interests.

Peter Bone: Will my right hon. Friend clear up one point? Are the Liberal Democrats blocking the Conservative party from introducing an EU referendum Bill in Government time?

Danny Alexander: I cannot block any Member picking up that Bill in the private Members’ ballot and seeking to advance it. We have already used more than 100 days of Government time to pass an Act that, for the first time in this country, gives our citizens a guarantee that the next time the treaties are changed there will automatically be a referendum. That should be sufficient for anyone.
	In the Queen’s Speech, the Government have also sought an international environment in which we tackle tax avoidance—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar. We have already taken significant strides in this country, but we are working together to support the development of an international tax
	environment that is much tougher on tax avoidance, and the Queen’s Speech recognises that. We are making real progress. The Chancellor, through his work in ECOFIN and in the G7, the G8 and the G20, supports free trade and is tackling tax evasion by encouraging greater transparency and accountability. Our efforts in that area represent real progress in creating a fairer international tax environment.
	We are also creating a fairer society on UK shores. The Queen’s Speech is packed with radical reforms, a programme that in one year will deliver more long-term changes to pensions, social care, our energy market and employment for small businesses than Labour managed in any Parliament while it was in office. The measures set out in the Queen’s Speech this year will continue this Government’s progress in rebuilding the United Kingdom economy, clearing up the mess that Labour left. Those measures will help us to build a stronger economy and a fairer society, and they will help all of those who want to get on in life. I commend them to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 244, Noes 329.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendment proposed: (b) at end add:
	“but respectfully regret that an EU referendum bill was not included in the Gracious Speech.”—(Mr Baron.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 130, Noes 277.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendment proposed: (e) at end add:
	“but respectfully regret that a Government of Wales Bill implementing the recommendations of the Commission on Devolution in Wales was not included in the Gracious Speech”—(Mr Llwyd.)
	The House divided:
	Ayes 237, Noes 316.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 314, Noes 237.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
	Most Gracious Sovereign,
	We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
	Address to be presented to Her Majesty by Members of the House who are Privy Counsellors or Members of Her Majesty’s Household.

Business without Debate

financial assistance to industry

Ordered,
	That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake to pay, and to pay by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, in respect of Beechbrook Capital as part of the Business Finance Partnership, sums exceeding £10 million and up to a cumulative total of £20 million.— (Mr Lansley.)

DANGEROUS DOGS AND JADE LOMAS ANDERSON

[Relevant documents: Seventh Report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Session 2012-13, on Dog Control and Welfare, HC 575, and the Government response, Session 2012-13, HC 1092.]
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Greg Hands.)

Julie Hilling: Jade Lomas Anderson was 14 on 9 March. On 26 March, she was savaged to death by four dogs. Jade was a very popular girl. She was full of life and loved to dance. The order of service at her funeral told us that she was the world’s biggest One Direction fan—Harry was her favourite. She entered and left the church to their music. At her memorial service and at her funeral, friends, family and teachers were full of praise for her. Her head teacher said that Jade was a lively girl who always had a smile on her face. Her friends and family said that she was beautiful, kind and a very good friend. She was the life and soul at family parties and was always first on the dance floor. She always had time to help and support other people. Her Facebook status said she was “in a relationship”, and her 13-year-old boyfriend Josh said that
	“she was beautiful and wouldn’t hurt a fly”.
	Jade had started at her new school only the previous June. Having come from a very small school, she made a tremendous effort to fit in and work hard at her studies. The school was very pleased with her progress and gave her a glowing end-of-term report. As a special treat for doing so well, her parents gave Jade permission to stay overnight at her friend’s house. It was a treat that ended in tragedy when Jade returned to the house alone and was savaged by four dogs.
	The dogs were quickly shot by a police marksman but Jade could not be saved. It is still too early to know all the details of what happened that day, and indeed we might never know all of them because Jade was alone at the time of her death. I am certainly not going to speculate in this speech about the potential findings of her inquest. It is also too early to know for sure whether the owner of the dogs can be prosecuted under 150-year-old legislation, but it quickly became apparent that she will not be prosecuted under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, because the dogs were not a banned breed and because the attack took place on private property. It seems absolute nonsense that one of the first acts the police had to undertake was to test the dogs to see whether their DNA contained traces of any banned breeds. We should have legislation that reflects the deed of the dog, not its breed.
	The Government’s proposals to amend the law to make dog attacks on private property prosecutable and to extend the legislation to cover attacks on assistance dogs are very welcome, but they simply do not go far enough. The consultation on dangerous dogs, started by the last Labour Government, closed in June 2010. Since then, there have been calls from organisations and charities, from Labour and from the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to introduce holistic legislation. Indeed, the Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), stated in February 2013:
	“DEFRA should introduce comprehensive legislation to consolidate the fragmented rules relating to dog control and welfare. New rules should give enforcement officers more effective powers, including Dog Control Notices, to prevent dog-related antisocial behaviour.”
	Tinkering with the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991—cited by many to be the worst piece of legislation ever produced—is simply not good enough. There are around 210,000 dog attacks each year and more than 6,000 people are admitted to hospital—often with life-changing injuries or terrible facial injuries, especially for children. On average, 12 postal workers are attacked each day. The NHS spends more than £3 million on treating the victims of dog attacks; local authorities spend £57 million on kennelling costs; and Jade Lomas Anderson was the ninth person to be killed since 2006.

Rosie Cooper: In two separate incidents in West Lancashire in the past two months, a female adult and a four-year-old boy—he suffered nine scars to his face—have been attacked by dogs. One attack was in the street and the other on private property. Neither the dog warden nor the police were able to take any action over these incidents. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need tougher measures immediately to ensure that people of all ages are better protected, and that agencies must have the necessary powers to enforce that protection?

Julie Hilling: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Since Jade’s death there have been thousands of further attacks on people, including one on a child in Bolton who had her eyelid ripped away and has terrible marks under her eye. Fortunately, the dog missed the eye altogether so her sight was saved. This is not an insignificant problem. It is an issue that affects the quality of life of millions of people and one that deserves the full attention of the Government, who should provide legislation that will really make a difference.

Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend is making a strong and passionate speech and paying a fitting tribute to Jade Lomas. My thoughts are with her family and friends. My hon. Friend will be aware that I recently witnessed a brutal attack by a Staffordshire bull terrier in which a cat was mauled to death in front of me and a man was injured—I only narrowly escaped injury myself. The family involved have been told that it would have been better if the dog had been running free in the street, because then something could have been done about it. That highlights again the issue of attacks taking place on private property. Does my hon. Friend agree that this simply has to change?

Julie Hilling: Absolutely. My hon. Friend has it absolutely right. I welcome the fact that the Government are going to extend the legislation to cover private property, but that in itself is not enough, because preventive measures are necessary, too.
	Dog control notices would give the authorities the power to intervene if concern has been raised about a dog. They would be able to instruct the owner to take a range of actions that could include keeping the dog muzzled, keeping it on a lead or keeping it away from children. The owner and dog could be made to undertake
	training. I believe, although not everyone agrees with me, that we should be able to order the owner to reduce the number of dogs in a household if the home is not suitable for the number and size of the dogs.
	Dog control notices are supported by a wide range of organisations, including the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, the RSPCA, the Royal College of Nursing, the British Veterinary Association, The Blue Cross, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and the Communication Workers Union. They have already been introduced in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and they should be introduced across the UK. Their existence would provide a swift, flexible and proportionate way to deal with irresponsible dog owners. They would act as an early warning system and action could be taken to promote responsible ownership, rather than just prosecuting owners after a tragedy has taken place.
	I welcome the Government’s intention to extend the legislation on out-of-control dogs to cover assistance dogs, but I do not understand why they have not included all protected animals. “Protected animals” are already defined under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and that would deal with the increasing problem of attacks on livestock as well as dealing with attacks on cats, which can often be the first sign that a dog is dangerously out of control. Why should not a responsible owner walking a dog on a lead be protected by law from an attack by a dangerous dog?
	My constituent Ryan came to see me when his dog was attacked in a park. He not only had to deal with the trauma of the attack, but then had a huge vet’s bill to pay. He did not need to describe the attacking dog to the vet; the vet could tell him about the dog, because a series of people had come to him with their injured dogs. Another constituent, Beryl, came to see me after her two cats were attacked by a dog in her own garden. After much pressure, the police did take action, but it would be so much easier if there were clear legislation.
	Dog charities and local authorities are reporting an increase in the number of abandoned dogs. Some are abandoned because their owners can no longer afford to look after them, others because their owners can no longer control them. Battersea Dogs and Cats Home told me that 41% of the dogs that came to its shelter last year were what it calls “bull breeds”, and 32% of those were Staffordshire bull terriers. The home has also seen an increase in the number of Akitas—Japanese fighting dogs—and Rottweilers. Like other charities, Battersea finds it difficult to re-home such dogs. Indeed, it was unable to re-home 28% of the dogs of all breeds that came to it. It was keen to stress that it does not destroy any dogs that can be re-homed, and places no time limit on the length of stay. In fact, the longest stay was by a Staffordshire bull terrier, who stayed for two years until the charity found him a new home.
	We do need to take action on the indiscriminate breeding of puppies. The Blue Cross says that it would like hobby breeders who are flooding an already saturated market with puppies to be stopped. That could be done by decreasing the number of litters a year that a person is allowed before having to become a licensed breeder. Many organisations think that the number should be reduced to two a year; others, including the former chief vet for the RSPCA, believe that anyone who breeds dogs—even if by accident—should be registered. The
	Government are proposing the compulsory microchipping of all dogs. Why can they not require a register of breeders at the same time?
	If microchipping is to be effective, there needs to be an obligation for the dog’s owner to transfer ownership officially. My local police tell me that they sometimes take a dog back to the registered address, only to be told that the owner gave it away some time ago. The old slogan “A dog is for life, not just for Christmas” needs to be brought to life by proper controls of ownership. The issues of dog welfare and community safety cannot be separated.
	Replying to an intervention by me in a debate last week, the Home Secretary told me that the Government had not included dog control notices in their Bill because they believed
	“that the other powers and orders we are introducing under this antisocial behaviour Bill will give sufficient power to the police to be able to deal with dangerous dogs without needing to introduce a separate—and yet another—notice.”—[Official Report, 9 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 170.]
	I have to inform her that none of the experts agree with her.
	Dogs that are used as weapons may come to the attention of the police, and the owners could become subject to the new antisocial behaviour orders, but dogs like those that killed Jade would never come to attention in that way. The only complaint about those dogs appears to have been a complaint about noise. If that could have been investigated with dog control notices in place, maybe—just maybe—action could have been taken; or maybe the people who were scared to walk past the garden would have felt it worthwhile to lodge a complaint because something could have been done.
	Jade’s was not the first case of dog attack to arise in my constituency, and if the Government do not take action, it will definitely not be the last. We need holistic legislation to deal with both dog welfare and dangerous dogs, because the two issues are inextricably linked. A well-trained, well-socialised and well-looked-after dog is far less likely to be involved in an attack. However, we also need to educate people about both care and respect for dogs. Even the most well-mannered dog may behave differently around children.
	Many owners have spoken to me in the past few weeks, and have told me that they would never leave their dog unattended with children. Why can we not support the voluntary sector in its efforts to train children and adults to care for dogs and take responsibility for them? Why can we not encourage secondary schools to make that part of personal, social, health and economic education, and encourage primary schools to educate their children about care for their pets? The current proposals will not protect our children, and they will not protect our communities from the blight of dangerous dogs.
	I would be the last person to suggest that if we had had legislation in place, Jade would have been saved, but one thing is sure: if we do not take comprehensive action there will be more Jades, and more people’s lives will be ruined by out-of-control dogs. Jade’s parents, Michael and Shirley Anderson, are fighting for Justice for Jade. They are determined to campaign to change the law so that no other family has to suffer in the way in which they are suffering. The Minister has the power
	to listen to them, to the many hon. Members who have raised the issue, and to the experts, and introduce comprehensive legislation. Will he do so?

David Heath: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) on securing the debate and on speaking with genuine eloquence and passion on behalf of her constituents. I salute her for doing so. Nothing I can say or do will fill the void in the lives of the family and friends of Jade Lomas Anderson, but I do want to send my condolences to them. The tragic circumstances of her death will, I hope, not be repeated, but they ought to make every Member mindful of whether we have the right legislation in place and what we can do. Such tragic incidents serve to remind us of the importance of responsible dog ownership and the far-reaching consequences of irresponsible dog ownership, which can affect all of us, regardless of whether we own a dog. I hope that that message will strike home.
	The Government continue to take the matter of dangerous dogs extremely seriously, and the hon. Lady kindly set out some of the measures we have put in place. The previous legislation was passed in haste and was inadequate in many ways. It has been seen not to be fit for purpose and we must close some of the loopholes and gaps.
	On 9 May, provisions amending the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 were introduced into the House with the First Reading of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. That follows the announcement on 6 February of the intention to amend the 1991 Act. Our legislating in this directed way, having taken the advice of many people, makes it clear that the Government are serious about tackling the issue of dangerous dogs and irresponsible dog ownership.
	The key element of the amendments addresses the issue of dog attacks on people. Sadly, such incidents are on the rise, and 15 people have died in this country as a result of dog attacks since 2005. That is totally unacceptable. To address that, and to toughen the laws in this area, we are giving the police more powers to deal with attacks that happen on private property—a specific lacuna in the law—in order to protect the thousands of children, postal workers, health visitors, social care workers and others who are attacked each year. That has been widely welcomed by key bodies such as the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Royal Mail, which recognise the danger to their employees. The message from the Government is clear: owners must be responsible for their dog at all times and in all places.
	This Government recognise that there are many responsible dog owners, and we support them. It is for that reason that the clauses amending the 1991 Act contain an explicit exemption from prosecution for householders whose dog attacks a trespasser who is in, or is entering, a home, whether or not the householder is present. That reinforces the Government’s position that it is right that householders should not be at risk of prosecution for reasonable actions taken in self-defence or in defence of property.
	We have also made sure that irresponsible owners have to face up to the consequences of their actions. Last year, the Sentencing Council published new guidelines
	for judges and magistrates on sentencing for dangerous dog offences, including increasing the recommended sentencing range for an offence of allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control and injuring someone from six to 18 months’ imprisonment. According to the Sentencing Council:
	“The new guideline will mean more offenders will face jail sentences, more will get community orders and fewer will receive discharges.”
	Those new guidelines came into effect in August 2012.
	The change is too late for the hon. Lady’s constituents—I recognise that—but it will ensure that any future cases are treated as a criminal matter. In addition, there are existing powers available to deal with any dog that is dangerously out of control or being used to intimidate people. Those powers have been and are being used, but it is right to extend the protection to people in all places, including their homes, so that owners know they will be held accountable for the behaviour of their dogs, wherever those dogs may be. We therefore look forward to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill moving through the House and being properly debated before it receives Royal Assent.
	The Government consider that owning a dog is a serious undertaking and should not be done lightly. We are working closely with the animal welfare charities to encourage people to take more responsibility for their own actions and their pets. The hon. Lady made some very sensible points about education, because a lot of dog owners simply do not recognise what they should be doing. Whether through ignorance, neglect or malice, it is simply unacceptable for dogs to be kept in circumstances in which they remain a danger to other people. That is what we need to address.
	Early intervention is vital in preventing poorly trained or poorly socialised dogs escalating to serious and ultimately dangerous attacks. As well as amending the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the Bill introduces six flexible tools designed to be used by local enforcement agencies, including the police and local authorities, to respond effectively to individual and local situations that may or may not involve dogs.

Stephen Doughty: I thank the Minister his assurances, particularly on increased police powers. One of the challenges I discovered when I engaged with the police over the incident I mentioned was that the police said that even if they had they been able to go on to private property to remove the dog, they had no facility in which to house the dog afterwards. The incident happened over an Easter weekend and no pounds were available—there was no place to take the dog. What assurances can he give about the facilities available to house dogs that are causing such distress?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and it is something we have been discussing with ACPO, because it is essential that if we give powers to the police, they can exercise them properly. A range of sanctions will be available to the police to deal with dogs. Some dogs, I am afraid, will have to be destroyed straight away—that is the reality—and others will be impounded, so it is important that there are facilities available to keep those dogs safely until they can be assessed or retrieved, as appropriate.
	Returning to the proposals to amend the Dangerous Dogs Act, we hope that they will provide a set of flexible and effective tools and powers to enable the police and local authorities to tackle a wide range of antisocial behaviour, including dog-related incidents. The amendments to the Act, bolstered by the new antisocial behaviour measures, will provide the framework for tackling irresponsible dog ownership, from low-level incidents to more serious dog attacks. That will help to encourage a more responsible approach. The focus should also be on ensuring proper enforcement, which can only be helped by engaging local communities, who understand local problems and can report them, combined with educating owners on responsible behaviour, as the hon. Lady said.

Julie Hilling: If the Bill really does as the Minister says and offers that holistic approach that could be summed up with dog control notices, why are all experts in the field saying that the Bill does not go far enough? There is still real concern about not having the ability to intervene early and the particular things that we can instruct the owner to do, including having training for both the dog and the owner. Without those, it is hard to see how this will be a holistic, preventive measure, because it is not enough. I appreciate that there will be actions to take after the event, but we have to do things to stop the problems in the first place.

David Heath: The hon. Lady is right. It is not good enough to deal with problems after the event. We need a preventive measure—an injunctive measure, which will be provided by the antisocial behaviour provisions that I am describing. She raises an important point, which I hope my colleagues in the Home Office will have the opportunity to discuss during the Bill’s passage through the House. They are confident that the measures they are introducing will have the desired effect. Obviously, the hon. Lady is not quite persuaded of that view yet. I hope we will have that debate and get the right solution.
	It is unnecessary to devise new labels and new measures that replicate the existing ones, so I hope the hon. Lady she will approach the measures with an open mind and listen to what my colleagues in the Home Office have to say. If she is not persuaded, she will no doubt argue for strengthening the Bill when it comes to the House, but I hope she will be persuaded, as we believe that the flexible approach adopted in the Bill provides a suite of measures which can be used not just for dogs but for other antisocial behaviour practices which need to be addressed. That is not a subject for this debate but I refer, for instance, to the flag racing of horses, which I am very concerned about. I would like to see antisocial behaviour measures which deal effectively with that.
	Let us have that discussion in the context of the Bill. I certainly hear the hon. Lady’s concerns; it would be foolish not to, and I will take them back to colleagues. Nevertheless, let us have the debate when we get to the appropriate stage of the Bill.

Julie Hilling: I thank the Minister for giving way again. To me, the crucial question is where intervention can start. Many of these cases would never have reached anything like antisocial behaviour. If we look at the deaths and terrible injuries that have occurred, we find
	that many of them would never have passed any threshold other than someone saying, “I’m a bit worried about those dogs.” That stage is crucial.
	There are other issues, such as the breeding of animals and their welfare. There has long been a need for all those aspects to be wrapped up in one Bill, but it feels as though we are just dealing with little bits and we will still have to come back and do more.

David Heath: I do not entirely agree that it is necessary to have consolidated legislation in order to effect the suite of measures that the hon. Lady is looking for. There are many cases in criminal law where various provisions dealing with similar issues are contained in different legislation. Sometimes that has benefits. I agree that it makes it slightly more difficult for the lawyer or the police officer to find the necessary measure, but provided they know that there is a measure on the statute book, they can use it. This is fairly common in criminal law. There has been a great profusion of criminal justice legislation over the years, much of which deals with overlapping issues.
	I do not entirely accept the hon. Lady’s criticism. In a perfect world we would have neat self-contained Bills on every subject, dealing with the entire statutory background to it. In reality, the House does not work like that. Also, there are provisions with respect to dogs and antisocial behaviour in common law as well as statute law, so even if we had a single statute, it would still not cover all the law that pertains. Nevertheless, I hear what the hon. Lady says.
	To continue what I was saying, it is very important that we now work with practitioners, local authorities and animal welfare charities to produce guidance that clearly demonstrates how the new tools can be used to cover all that dog control notices do and more, and to take account of the needs of communities as well as dog welfare. One of the measures echoes the comments of the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). Local authorities will be required to provide 24-hour accommodation, but the police should also have such a facility if they are doing their job properly. We need to talk to them about that.
	A number of commentators have asked who will enforce the controls on dogs. The Government understand the pressure on both the police and local authorities at this time. The split that we see is that police will concentrate their time on more serious criminal matters, which will involve investigating dog attacks under the Dangerous Dogs Act, and not spend time dealing with stray dogs. That makes sense. Local authorities should be taking decisions on local priorities for action and allocate their
	resources accordingly. Some local authorities have been very proactive and imaginative in providing local solutions and approaches to dealing with dogs. For example, it is a requirement of Wandsworth’s housing tenancy agreements that any dogs on its properties are microchipped. That means that there is a direct link between the dog and its owner, which encourages more responsible behaviour and reduces dog-related incidents.
	The Dangerous Dogs Act prohibits four specific types of fighting dog, and the hon. Lady mentioned the issues relating to bull terriers—the pit bull terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro. It has been suggested that we should add to this list of prohibited dogs. However, none of the key stakeholders, such as the police or local authorities, consider it would be very effective to add more types of dog to the prohibited list. In fact some stakeholders want the list taken away completely and for us to concentrate on what the dog does, not on the breed of dog. Like the police, the Government are not in favour of introducing new categories. We take the view that both deed and breed are important.
	The four types of prohibited dogs are fighting dogs—dogs specifically bred for fighting—but the Act also recognises that any dog has the potential to be dangerous if incorrectly trained and left in the wrong hands, which is why there are offences for any dog to be dangerously out of control. It is why education for the public is so vitally important, along with early intervention that will allow the correct agencies, such as animal welfare organisations or local authorities, to intervene and provide advice in order to correct behaviour that could have a detrimental effect on the safety and welfare of the dog.
	In addition to the extension of criminal liability to all places, the proposed amendments to the Dangerous Dogs Act will include, for the first time, a specific offence for a dog attack on an assistance dog. I am glad that the hon. Lady welcomes that.
	The Government believe that irresponsible dog ownership is best targeted through a number of actions and initiatives. The hon. Lady will know about the microchipping initiative that we also have under way. We will debate this many more times during the next few months. I hope that we will get the right results this time, unlike the last time the House legislated. I can only assure her—and through her, her constituents—that we take the issue of dangerous dogs extremely seriously. We want to get the right answers and we are bending every sinew to make sure that that is the case.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.